PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By  Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
	To be further considered on Thursday 21 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Individual Learning Accounts

John Baron: What plans she has to compensate individual learning account training providers who have suffered financial loss as a result of the closure of the scheme.

Stephen O'Brien: How many providers have been investigated by her Department in relation to abuses of the individual learning account scheme.

John Healey: The Department has no plans to compensate learning providers in relation to the closure of the individual learning accounts programme.
	The Department's special investigations unit has completed one case and is investigating a further 105 registered learning providers. In addition, the police are investigating another 66.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for his response, but I believe that that answer is shameful. Given that it is generally recognised that because of poor controls the Government allowed this initiative to turn into a shambles, which has cost £65 million in fraud, left many students in the lurch and forced many learning providers to shed jobs—and, in some cases, go out of business altogether—why will the Government not honour their responsibilities and at least compensate those learning providers who invested in this initiative but rue the day they ever took the Government at their word?

John Healey: Quite simply because the Government's first duty is to safeguard public funds and to look after the interests of individual learners. The business decisions that learning providers took to take part in the programme were a matter for them. There was no contract between the Department and learning providers, and the legal advice that the Department has is very clear.

Stephen O'Brien: The Minister has had two weeks' notice of my question yet all he produces is that vacuous answer. Is it any wonder that the Government's complete incompetence has rendered them impotent in the light of this ridiculous scandal over ILAs and the alleged fraud, with only one completed investigation?
	Will the Minister try to answer an easier question? Evidence given recently by his officials to the Select Committee on Education and Skills showed that his Department had no control over ILAs. Will he now admit that he has responsibility for the waste of an estimated £65 million of public funds? How many teachers could that have provided?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my answer, but I gave him precisely the answer that his question required. One investigation into learning providers has been completed by the Department and a further 105 are under way. Some 66 investigations are being undertaken by the police, 11 further cases are being discussed with the police, and 44 arrests have been made, with 13 people charged and one convicted. That is an effective early start to mop up the problems that we had with the individual learning account scheme.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee evidence, particularly mine—I have given evidence before it three times in about three months—he will see that I explained clearly that the problems in the scheme began to arise and accumulate over the summer. We took action during that time to tighten the scheme's rules and operation. We were simply unable to do so within the design of the scheme and were left, regrettably, with no option but to announce on 24 October that we had to close the scheme to protect public funds and the interests of individual learners who were being abused by the minority of learning providers taking advantage of the scheme.

Judy Mallaber: One of the most rewarding jobs that I have undertaken as a Member of Parliament has been to present education certificates to trade unionists who have been helped by their union to take up education opportunities for the first time in many years. They have often been helped by individual learning accounts. I urge my hon. Friend to introduce a successor programme to ILAs as soon as possible and also to take steps to encourage the development of union learning representatives who are often in the best position in the workplace to encourage non-traditional learners to take up education opportunities.

John Healey: My hon. Friend may know that alongside the task of managing the closure of the ILA scheme and getting to the bottom of the problems that we had with it, we are working very hard on the design of a successor programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both confirmed in the House that there will be a successor scheme. In the design of that scheme we are conscious of the fact that unions, often through union learning representatives in the workplace, have made imaginative use of ILAs and, by so doing, have helped reach target groups such as part-time workers, older male workers and shift workers whom we have been unable to reach within the lifelong learning system.

Alistair Burt: The Minister's belated understanding of the fact that his Department has a duty to protect public funds caused a sharp intake of breath and a reference to the Trade Descriptions Act. Who does he think has been most damaged by the disaster with individual learning accounts? Is it the students, the learning providers, or the Government themselves, who, in pursuit of yet another lazily conceived manifesto target, have lost the confidence of everyone they needed to make a perfectly good idea work?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Individual learning accounts certainly encouraged new learning and brought new business to learning providers. I am conscious of the fact that both groups are affected by our regrettable, but inevitable, decision that we had to close the scheme. If, with hindsight, the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was so clear to so many people for so long that there were problems with the ILA scheme, why was it that from the general election until 24 October when we announced the closure of the scheme, only one parliamentary question on ILAs was tabled by Opposition Members? The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench did not ask a single question.

Student Financial Support

David Laws: What recent representations she has received regarding the review of student financial support in higher education.

Estelle Morris: We have received correspondence from a range of individuals and organisations. We will be taking their opinions into account as we develop our policy.

David Laws: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administrations in both Wales and Scotland on their decisions to bring back maintenance grants for students on lower incomes?

Estelle Morris: The decision was properly taken by the Assembly. I note that that is the way it has chosen to deal with the issue—I will say no more and no less than that.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my right hon. Friend consider the people who study for higher education in a further education setting, in particular those whom we are desperately trying to get into higher education and who have child care needs? Under the present funding formula, such people cannot receive any contribution towards the cost of child care whereas if they were studying in a higher education setting, they could do so. Will she also assure me that she will take no lectures from the Opposition parties? When in power, they spent all their time trying to do down students and student funding.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has a fair point. In this country, there is a long-established tradition of supporting students in higher education, but she is right to point out that traditionally students who go into further education have not received that level of personal support. Since 1997, the Labour Government have invested a great deal in child care support for students in further education as well as for those in higher education. Given her interest in the matter, she will recognise that. I have no doubt that in future years, as we progress our wish to ensure that 50 per cent. of the under-30s have experience of higher education, many people will come through non-traditional routes such as FE colleges. Clearly, their needs must be part of our thinking in the medium and long term.

David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if and when grants are reintroduced in England, at least part of the cost should fall on the general taxpayer, since all taxpayers benefit from getting more students from less well-off backgrounds into higher education, and that the rest of the costs should be borne by graduates who go into good well-paid jobs rather than by upfront tuition fees?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a graduate tax, I think. What is clear is that funding students in higher education has to be a combination of contributions from the Government, who have the responsibility, the learner who is the biggest gainer and from the family. We are looking into how to achieve that combination. Clearly, those are the three sources of income and that will remain the case.

Gillian Merron: May I tell my right hon. Friend that at a meeting with students at the university of Lincoln last week to discuss student finances, I was struck by the fact that their perception of the amount to be repaid on their loans was far in excess of the reality of the repayments? Will she ensure that the review looks into ways to get clear and accurate information to would-be students as well as actual students and their families, so that people are not unnecessarily put off going to university?

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Another point that is often misunderstood is that while people are not working, they do not have to repay the loan. Indeed, some of the changes that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Employment introduced following the 1997 election have made repayment far easier than was formerly the case. One misunderstanding is that people think they are paying all the fees, if they pay a fee at all. In fact, those students who pay fees—even if they pay the maximum contribution—pay only a quarter of the total amount and the state picks up the remaining three quarters.

Jim Cousins: I congratulate the Government on reintroducing grants last autumn in the form of opportunity bursaries. Between 400 and 500 such bursaries have been awarded to students in universities in the north-east of England. However, I have spoken to many of those in receipt of the bursaries and can tell my right hon. Friend that the basis of any future student grant scheme will have to be much broader and wider than the opportunity bursaries, whose tests of parental income and parental experience of education are drawn far too narrowly.

Estelle Morris: As my hon. Friend knows, the opportunity bursaries were initially payable in the excellence in cities areas. If he casts his mind back four years, he will recall that we started the excellence in cities programme in six urban areas; it now covers a third of all the country's secondary schools. The opportunity bursaries have been widely welcomed: from a £36 million fund, a grant of £2,000 has been paid to students whose family income is less than £20,000. Such students are often the first generation to experience higher education. I have heard my hon. Friend's comments, however, and no doubt as part of our comprehensive spending review considerations we shall look at the success of the opportunity bursaries and reflect on whether they are a good form of further Government investment.

Foreign Languages

John Randall: What plans she has for the teaching of foreign languages.

Ivan Lewis: Our aspirations for language learning and teaching were set out in the pamphlet "Language Learning", published last month. One of those aspirations is to widen the opportunities for language learning in the primary sector. The pamphlet invited views from key stakeholders. Those views will inform our national strategy which we plan to publish in the autumn.

John Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Which language should be the principal language taught in our schools, and why?

Ivan Lewis: I am not sure to which wing of the Conservative party the hon. Gentleman belongs in relation to Europe. Clearly, there would be automatic consensus on both sides of the House that the most important language that young people should learn in this country is English. The issue is then to ensure that the maximum number of pupils have the choice to study—and have access to—as many foreign languages as possible. That is why the Government's proposals to give primary school pupils, for the first time, a proper chance to have access to modern foreign languages are such an important development.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large number of people welcome the Government's fresh thinking on foreign language teaching? Both the Green Paper and the "Language Learning" document refer to the innovation of teaching foreign languages at primary level. Will he take on board the fact that we must get right the methodology of teaching languages? During the past 30 to 50 years, we have seen a deterioration in language education in British schools. Surely we should look at some of the best practice worldwide. The Select Committee on Education and Skills recently visited the United States. Some of the innovative approaches to language learning at Stanford are revolutionary; I hope that my hon. Friend will consider them.

Ivan Lewis: That is absolutely right; there certainly should be more emphasis on spoken languages in primary schools. We have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions: for example, last year, why were about 36,000 pupils disapplied at 14 from modern foreign languages as part of the national curriculum? If we are not motivating and encouraging young people to take modern foreign languages, we are clearly getting something wrong; so it is right that we learn lessons from international experience in countries where modern foreign languages are popular with young people so that we can improve our teaching methodology in order to motivate and enthuse them about the importance of learning modern foreign languages, which are essential in a global economy.

Graham Brady: We are all grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government's policy on language teaching has descended into utter confusion. Why is it important, according to the recent Green Paper, that languages should be taught in primary schools and to adult learners, while it is also apparently Government policy that language in secondary schools should be optional, like the teaching of Darwinian evolution? What resources will the Government provide for the teaching of languages in primary schools? What is their strategy for providing the extra 18,000 language teachers who will be needed if there is to be one in each of our primary schools? Is not the Government's strategy on language teaching just another example of what Lord Hattersley derided on Monday as the declaratory arm of Government in action?

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive contribution to the debate. The issue is straightforward: most of those who believe strongly that young people should have access to modern foreign languages have believed for many years that we need to start in the primary sector if we are to get it right. The Conservative Government did nothing to encourage that. We are ensuring that young people will continue to study a modern foreign language between the ages of 11 and 14 and will be entitled to continue with that beyond the age of 14, but we do not believe that it is right to force young people, against their will, to study foreign languages. That is constructive neither for their educational development nor for the teachers who are expected to teach them a subject in which they have no interest. [Interruption.]
	By 2012—an ambitious and optimistic target—all primary school children will be entitled to study modern foreign languages. [Interruption.] There are already 20 per cent.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has done very well.

Valerie Davey: I acknowledge and share the Minister's enthusiasm for introducing modern foreign languages at primary level. Will he acknowledge that many young people enter school bilingual and that there are many languages that we should encourage, so that those who speak them can establish their level of attainment at GCSE?

Ivan Lewis: I entirely agree. It is sensible to build on the skills that young people have in the early years and to encourage them through primary education, so that by the time they reach 14 they are far more likely to be motivated to make a positive choice to continue studying modern foreign languages, rather than being compelled to do so.

Performance-related Pay

Mark Hoban: What recent meetings she has had with the NASUWT to discuss performance-related pay.

Ian Lucas: If she will provide extra funding for performance-related pay for teachers.

Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards met representatives of all the teacher associations on 18 February and last met the NASUWT on 5 March. Since 1997, we have so far spent more than £700 million to fund threshold payments, and we have made available a further £250 million in special grant over the next two years to help schools pay for the performance points that they decide to award.

Mark Hoban: I thank the Secretary of State for that terribly complacent answer. Having dealt a further blow to morale in the teaching profession by refusing to fund performance-related pay fully, will she accept that the wreckers of the public services are not those who work in them but those who run them—Ministers and the Government?

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is just a touch confused. Providing £700 million to fund threshold payments fully is not complacent. That £700 million to fund excellent teachers was not available under the Tory Government, and neither was the further £250 million to fund performance points.
	In 1998, when we launched performance pay, we said categorically that we would fund fully on demand a £2,000 pay increase for every single teacher who met the threshold. We have done that fully and promptly, with money straight from Government to teachers' pay packets, and that has made a difference. We made it absolutely clear that we would make available a further four performance points for teachers above the threshold. Indeed, in 1998 we did not commit any money to that, but since then, we have committed a further £250 million. The hon. Gentleman describes that as complacent; I hesitate to say that there are many people in the public sector, let alone in the private sector, who would think it exceptionally generous.

Ian Lucas: I very much welcome the fact that the original threshold payments were demand-led and fully funded by the Government. Talking to head teachers in my constituency, there was an element of misunderstanding about the funding position on performance points. In a spirit of co-operation, which I know the Secretary of State adopts, what steps will she take to repair the damage and change the present position?

Estelle Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let us be clear about what we are asking head teachers to do. We are asking them to take decisions about which teachers should get performance points above the threshold for sustained good performance. Head teachers already make those sort of decisions every day of the week: they look at their resources and make decisions about how many management points they should give and whether they should use their resources to further reward a good head of maths or English. They have never before had the option of making decisions about staff who want to be good classroom teachers.
	For the first time, head teachers have a pay structure which permits them to reward staff for good classroom teaching; I applaud and welcome that. Of course, it is a tough decision, but that is what leadership in our schools is about these days. I have every confidence that our heads can exercise the same judgment, professionalism and commitment in deciding which staff should earn those performance points that they exercise in their decisions about the rest of the allocation of resources. Because it is a difficult task, we are further helping them by putting an additional £250 million into the pay system. Managing change is never easy, but I have every confidence that head teachers are up to it; this is about transforming and modernising our public services.

Phil Willis: I wonder how the Secretary of State can keep a straight face. Nowhere in the Green Paper "Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change" is there any question of 50 per cent. of the people who have gone through the pay threshold being barred from getting an additional reward. People are going through the threshold having met all the performance criteria, only to be told by the Government that only half of them will be funded. People are going on to the management pay spine, only to be told that one in four of them can be funded. Surely the Secretary of State should be ashamed of that level of duplicity.

Estelle Morris: That was mock anger from the hon. Gentleman; I cannot believe that he has misunderstood the original announcements in the Green Paper so much. Let us be clear: nowhere did the Green Paper say that performance points above the threshold would be demand-led; it did not lay down a set of criteria, nor did it say that if those criteria were met, performance points above the threshold would be achieved. It clearly said that there would be a national set of criteria for threshold payments. To make sure that those criteria were implemented nationally, we established a system of assessors to ensure that public money was properly spent.
	Every utterance that I have made in the past three years on the subject has always made it clear—if the hon. Gentleman did not understand, teachers' representatives did—that performance points above the threshold were different from performance points at the threshold. The threshold is demand-led against nationally agreed criteria; the external assessor is a safeguard for making sure that public money is well spent. Points above the threshold are entirely different; they are about criteria decided by Government bodies and head teachers. Head teachers make decisions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to tell the Secretary of State that I want to call another Member.

Jim Knight: In the past month, I have visited some dozen schools in my constituency, most of them primary schools. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in every case, their head teachers very much welcome the introduction of performance- related pay and the ability to pay up to the threshold. However, in Dorset standard spending assessment funding for education is very low: compared with neighbouring Hampshire, it is at least £100 per pupil less. Head teachers in Dorset struggle to find the extra funding for performance-related pay. What hope can she offer that they will have that extra funding, so that our fine teachers can be rewarded?

Estelle Morris: Quite simply, the money for threshold payments and performance points above the threshold is ring-fenced and cannot be used for any other purpose. It is additional to the base budget for head teachers in my hon. Friend's area, so he should be able to return to Dorset and reassure them of that.

Damian Green: Everything that the Secretary of State has said in the past five minutes has amply confirmed the original charge of complacency made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). When she and her Ministers discuss performance-related pay with the unions, will she reflect that she is the first Education Secretary since state education was introduced in 1870 to unite head teachers in threatening industrial action? In considering that and today's strike, which is closing schools across London, how much responsibility does she think that she bears for the anger felt by teachers towards this Government?

Estelle Morris: Teachers in London who go on strike today are entirely responsible for their own decisions. On pay in London, the salary of a teacher who started teaching in London when we came to power is now 63 per cent. higher than it was in 1997. The previous Conservative Government could not boast such a record. Let us be clear: the Conservatives opposed the threshold payments that, for the first time, pay a 10 per cent. increase to people after seven years in the profession. Shortly, it will be paid after just five years.
	I am the first Education Secretary who can say that our pay structure rewards teachers for teaching well in the classroom. I do not describe as complacent a £700 million threshold and a further £250 million for performance points. It is a sign of this Government's absolute determination to reward teachers well, and to recognise those who teach well and who manage effectively.

Damian Green: It is transparently obvious that very few teachers would agree that the Secretary of State is not being complacent. No Opposition Member would support strike action that damages children's education, but, unlike the right hon. Lady, I have some sympathy for teachers. They are being driven beyond endurance by the never-ending stream of interference from her Department and by the Government's lack of support for issues that matter to teachers—from performance-related pay to enforcing proper discipline in schools. Does she not recognise that the underlying reason for the first NUT strike since the 1970s is that teachers are angrier than they have been since those years? If she does not change her policies and her tone, she will, like her 1970s Labour predecessors, preside over public sector strikes and terrible damage to educational standards.

Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman's memory is selective. He moves from the strikes of the 1970s to today, thereby missing out the 1980s. In respect of educating our children, more days were probably lost in the 1980s—under a Tory Government—than at any previous time. He talks about complacency, but let me list a few things. We are rewarding advanced skills teachers who stay in the classroom, and establishing threshold payments of £2,000 and a pay structure that involves performance points. On training salaries, those who train as teachers receive £10,000. Through education legislation, I am establishing the power to pay off loans—"golden hello" training salaries—for those who train to teach in our schools. None of those measures were in place before 1997, and every single one has been opposed by the Tories.
	We offer more than words. We have shown by our actions and our investment that we value teachers. That is evidenced by this year's report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of the Office for Standards in Education. According to it, the quality of teaching in our schools is better than it has ever been in this nation's history. That has been achieved through excellent teachers and through a Government who, for the first time in a very long time, are committed to supporting them. We will continue to do so, but we will be tough on strike action, because it should not happen.

Student Grants

Simon Thomas: If she will bring forward proposals to reintroduce student grants.

Margaret Hodge: Our review of student finance is considering a number of options. We shall make an announcement on the outcome of the review when it is complete and will consult on proposals for change.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will she accept that the decision to reintroduce student grants in Wales was triggered by an independent report that clearly showed that poorer students were not accessing higher education in Wales and that maintenance grants needed to be reintroduced? I cannot believe that the situation can be very different in England. Does not the Minister think that equity demands a maintenance system for poorer students in England and does not the Barnett formula and the decision by the National Assembly of Wales also have an implication for her Department?

Margaret Hodge: I am surprised by that contribution because the strength of devolution is that the National Assembly can and does take decisions that differ from those taken by this Parliament. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would support that. I wish that ensuring that more people access our higher education system was as simple as introducing student grants. The issue is much more complicated and is equally about raising the attainment of young people in schools, keeping them in school and raising their aspirations so that they see university as an option for them.

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many students from low-income backgrounds in my constituency, especially those studying at Anglia polytechnic university. Those students are finding it a struggle. Many work such long hours that it impacts on their studies. Could she make it clear to the House that the Liberal Democrat campaign to abolish tuition fees has no effect on poorer students because they do not pay tuition fees? However, in the review of student finance, will she look sympathetically at the introduction of maintenance grants for students from low-income backgrounds?

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the fact that half of our students pay no fees and only a third pay the full fee. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the full fee barely covers a quarter of the actual tuition cost and the rest is met by Government. The purpose of the review of student funding is to ensure that debt, or the fear of debt, does not prevent people—especially those from low-income backgrounds—from going to university. We will have that at the centre of our concerns.

Nicholas Winterton: Has the Minister studied the survey undertaken by UNITE, a company that provides accommodation for students? The poll was carried out by MORI and involved some 1,600 students. It drew attention to growing student debt and the increase in part-time working by students, especially those from low-income families. What is the Government's reaction and what response will they make?

Margaret Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that survey, because it also said—I hope that he does not mind me quoting some figures at him—that more than 90 per cent. of those involved believed that their university education was worth while, 86 per cent. enjoyed university, 88 per cent. were happy with their lives and 86 per cent. were optimistic about their future. So the survey gave a balanced view. It is true that more students—about half—now work part time and we need to get the balance right between supporting themselves through part-time work and continuing their studies. It is also true that average debt on leaving university is going up, although not as much some predicted. One of the reasons for that is the greater generosity of the loan scheme compared with the scheme that was in place under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

James Purnell: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the key criterion being considered in the review of student finance is the 50 per cent. target? Does she agree that in working out how we can reach that target the most important factor is raising the number of people staying on after 16 and that, therefore, in considering the priorities for funding we also have to think about education maintenance allowances? Those are already making a big difference in my constituency and need to be extended further around the country.

Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend's important points. The rate of young people staying on in full-time education and training after the age of 16 is very poor. If we cannot increase that rate—on which our 14 to 19 agenda is focused—we will not build the skills that are needed to be successful in the economy. One of the most effective levers that we have so far identified for supporting an increase in participation after 16 has been the introduction of the education and maintenance allowance. Over 5 per cent. more students have stayed on at 16, and even more have remained in education at 17 and gained achievements. We will build on that and bear it in mind as we determine how to move forward on student funding.

Grammar Schools

Hugh Robertson: If she will make a statement on the future of grammar schools.

Stephen Timms: Our position remains unchanged. There will be no new grammar schools, but changes to the future admission arrangements of existing ones are for parents to decide through the ballot process.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer. However, he will be aware of the confusion and distress caused to many parents in my constituency by the adjudicator's recent decision on admissions policy in Kent. One of the things that is often said at my surgeries is that that is regarded as a covert attack on the grammar school system. Will the Minister therefore confirm to my constituents, who simply want the best possible education for their children, that the Government have absolutely no plans to abolish grammar schools.

Stephen Timms: I can confirm that, as we have done on a number of occasions. The situation in Kent is complex, and there are competing interests between those parents who want a comprehensive school place as their first choice and those who want a good comprehensive as a fallback if their children are unsuccessful in grammar school selection. There have been three adjudicated decisions recently in Kent, which have addressed different issues. Our priority is raising standards across the entire secondary system, and it is clear that we are succeeding.

Tony Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that raising standards across the whole secondary sector would be easier if that sector were properly consistent? The presence of grammar schools distorts pupil admissions to schools in some areas. It creates a problem in Greater Manchester in particular, where some boroughs have had comprehensive education for a generation but admissions procedures are totally distorted by the drag effect of authorities where grammar schools exist. That is not in the interests of getting 50 per cent. of pupils into higher education, especially among poorer people.

Stephen Timms: As my hon. Friend knows, we do not favour selection at 11. Research shows that the most able pupils perform just as well at comprehensive schools as at grammar schools, if not better. However, where grammar schools exist, local parents should be able to determine whether they should continue. That is the right way in which to make that decision. We also take the view that existing grammar schools can contribute to raising standards in other local schools, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, it is right that those decisions should be made locally through the ballot process that we have established.

David Lidington: Is the Minister aware of the financial problems that are being caused to grammar schools in Buckinghamshire and to a fair number of comprehensive schools elsewhere by the Learning and Skills Council's decision to withhold an element of the sixth form capitation payment on the mistaken assumption that 10 per cent. or more of those sixth form students will drop out before completing their courses? Will he agree to review that policy?

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding for sixth forms has been transferred to the Learning and Skills Council. I am aware that there have been some local difficulties. We have provided additional grant to seek to address those problems, but these are matters for the Learning and Skills Council to conclude. All the evidence that I have seen is that those arrangements are being reached satisfactorily up and down the country.

Teaching Assistants

Andrew Love: How many teaching assistants are employed in schools in England.

Stephen Timms: There were 95,815 full-time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in England in January 2001. That was an increase of more than 50 per cent. on the 1997 figure. The figure for January 2002 will be available in a few weeks.

Andrew Love: The number of classroom assistants in my local authority has increased from 440 to 650 in the past three years. As a result, educational standards have improved in six of my local primary schools by more than the national average. However, we must—and can—do more to assist. What is my hon. Friend the Minister doing to improve the training and qualifications of classroom assistants to help them support teachers better in the classroom?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the very important contribution made by teaching assistants to raising standards in schools up and down the country. The Government made a firm manifesto commitment to increase the support for teachers in schools with at least another 20,000 additional support staff of all types—teaching assistants and others—in this five-year term.
	We have set aside £400 million over the next two years to recruit and train additional teaching assistants. Research confirms the value and importance of well trained and managed teaching assistants. They have a key role in our vision of a remodelled school work force in which teachers have the support that they need to be able to concentrate on teaching. We are investing in developing the necessary skills and non-vocational qualifications so that there is a better career structure for teaching assistants. That is a very important consideration in our discussions with trade unions and others about remodelling the school work force.

Peter Lilley: Does the Minister accept that classroom assistants at best can be a supplement to teachers, but never a substitute for them? Why, therefore, has the pupil teacher ratio in state secondary schools, which improved in the Conservative years, deteriorated every year under this Government—in Hertfordshire, and in most counties?

Stephen Timms: The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the Government are committed to achieving a substantial reduction in class size for infant schools. That reduction has been delivered. We have 11,000 more teachers today than in 1997, the end of the period of Conservative Government. Recruitment to teacher training is up by more than 20 per cent. this year compared with last year. We will have twice as many people this year as last in the graduate teacher programme, which allows people in mid-career to come into teaching. That shows that we are also making very good progress with teacher recruitment.
	The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is right that teaching assistants are only a supplement. It is vital that we recruit more teachers and bring more people into the profession. We have put in place the measures to achieve that, and we are being successful.

Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that some of those teaching assistants work at North Derbyshire college in my constituency? That old mining college had to readjust totally after the pit closures, and there have been some reports that it has run into difficulties. I emphasise that I, the Labour- controlled Derbyshire local authority and other councils in the area are determined to ensure that the college, the largest employer in the district, remains. It was the Tory proposition to close things: it must be Labour's to repair things, mend things, make them successful and keep people in work.
	I hope that the Minister has got the message.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend has made his views very clear. We are waiting for the inspection report on that college, and we shall give its findings careful consideration.

Individual Learning Accounts

Desmond Swayne: What progress she is making towards replacing ILAs and expanding the availability of these vehicles by the end of 2002.

John Healey: There will be a successor ILA-style scheme, which will build on the lessons, good and bad, that we have learned from the ILA programme. It will take into account the findings of the current wide consultation exercise which are due in early April. I regret that I cannot, therefore, confirm when we will launch the successor scheme.

Desmond Swayne: My postbag is full of letters from a great number of people of very modest means who have made significant sacrifices, both of a financial nature and in the way in which they organise their lives, and who are now up the creek without a paddle. Is it true that the Learning and Skills Council warned Ministers of the possibilities for fraud in the ILA scheme and that those warnings were ignored? Will that lesson be taken on board for the new scheme, and how on earth will the Minister regain the confidence of those people who have suffered so badly in the shambles that this business has become?

John Healey: The first question on the Order Paper was about the successor scheme. The Learning and Skills Council came into operation on 1 April 2001, and we launched the ILA scheme in September and October 2000, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no, and many other interests were consulted in the run-up to the design of the scheme. I am conscious of the fact that our decision to close the ILA scheme, which was regrettable and inevitable, has left many learners unable to take up the opportunities that existed under that scheme. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that 85 per cent. of those who used their ILA said that it opened up new options for them in training and learning, and 91 per cent. said that the learning met or exceeded their expectations.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Sex Abuse Cases

Claire Curtis-Thomas: What steps she is taking to ensure that there is consistency of approach between each Crown Prosecution Service area in respect of the (a) scrutiny and (b) credibility checks undertaken by the staff of the CPS in relation to sex abuse cases.

Harriet Harman: All case files received by the CPS are individually reviewed in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. The code is there to ensure fairness and consistency in case work decision making. It applies to cases involving sex abuse as it does to any other sort of case. Crown prosecutors are trained in how to apply the code, they are supervised in their work and they are inspected by Her Majesty's CPS inspectorate.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The Minister will be aware of my significant interest in the activities of the CPS which arises from my role as chairman of the committee for abuse investigations. Although I appreciate her comments about the consistency of procedures, my concern is whether there is any evidence that the procedures have not only efficient results but just and efficacious outcomes.

Harriet Harman: As my hon. Friend says, I am well aware of her long-standing interest in the prosecution of sex offences involving children in care homes. I am aware also that in response to her work in the field, the Home Affairs Committee is to set up an investigation into these issues. Certainly the CPS wants fair outcomes as well as efficient investigations. I urge her to take up the invitation of John Holt, the chief Crown prosecutor in her area, Merseyside, to talk to some of the front-line prosecutors involved in investigating and prosecuting these very difficult cases. She will be reassured by the level-headed approach that they take to these difficult, sensitive issues.

Serious Fraud Office

Jim Cunningham: How many prosecutions the Serious Fraud Office has instituted over the past 12 months; and how many have been successful.

Harriet Harman: The job of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate as well as to prosecute cases of serious and complex fraud. In the past 12 months prosecutions against 22 defendants were concluded by the SFO; 18 were convicted and four acquitted. The 80 cases that the SFO is currently investigating involve fraud of over £2.5 billion.

Jim Cunningham: What is the level of fraud in the City and what is my right hon. and learned Friend doing about it?

Harriet Harman: It is estimated that in the economy as a whole there is about £14 billion of fraud. My hon. Friend is right to bring that to the attention of the House because fraud is a problem not only for the individual who is defrauded but for the economy and our financial services institutions. I work closely with other Departments, as does the SFO with Customs and the Inland Revenue. It is right that we go after white collar crime so that we do not have a situation where the richer people are, the more likely they are to get away with it. In that respect, the SFO is a bit like David facing Goliath, but it does a very good job in making sure that people cannot get away with crime just because they have billions of pounds of the proceeds of crime with which to defend themselves.

John Burnett: I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that it is crucial for Government Departments to work together to combat fraud, and that co-ordination of Government effort and expertise is essential to bring forward successful prosecutions.
	Customs and Excise prosecutors have come recently, or are about to come, under the aegis of the right hon. and learned Lady's Department. What plans are there for Inland Revenue prosecutors?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Customs and Excise prosecutors are shortly to be accountable to the Attorney-General. There are several principles at work. It is important to ensure the independence of the prosecutors. It is important also to ensure proper accountability to the House for all prosecutors throughout government. Further, it is important that they all work together.
	There were particular circumstances where it was felt that the independence of Customs and Excise prosecutors would be reinforced if they were to become directly accountable to the Attorney-General. As the hon. Gentleman says, that is about to happen. However, I am not aware that it is suggested that that should be the case for Inland Revenue prosecutors. We work closely with Inland Revenue prosecutors, and I visited the team a few weeks ago.

Chris Bryant: I welcome everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has been saying.
	The director of the Serious Fraud Office has already acknowledged that the office is scraping only the surface of fraud in the United Kingdom. Given that the SFO has had many recent successes, would it not make sense for the office to have responsibility for all fraud prosecutions?
	Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Mr. Ernest Saunders, formerly of Guinness, is helping the national health service with a special research project into miraculous cures for pre-senile dementia?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the valuable work that is done by the SFO. Given its size, it can undertake only a certain number of investigations and prosecutions. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the Government Front Bench to hear about the importance of the SFO's work and the need to expand it. I am sure that he will take these matters seriously.
	It has been suggested in the past that the SFO should take on minor frauds. It is right, however, that it should take on complex and serious frauds. Such cases involve specialist legal and accountancy work that ranges across different jurisdictions. When I was in the SFO yesterday, it was explained to me that sometimes there are different defendants in different countries, with witnesses in different countries. The office has to deal with the proceeds of crime in different countries, and it has to translate its documents into different languages.
	We will not allow big, international fraudsters to get away with their activities by crossing jurisdictions. It is important that the SFO's work is recognised and that it has the resources that it needs to do its job.

Crown Prosecution Service

Helen Southworth: What assessment she has made of the recommendation of Lord Justice Auld that the charges against defendants should be decided by the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the police.

Harriet Harman: Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts, published in October 2001, proposed that the Crown Prosecution Service, rather than the police, should have responsibility for determining the charge against defendants except in minor or routine cases. This is to ensure that the right suspect is brought to court with the right charge and the right evidence.

Helen Southworth: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. In her opinion, is it more likely that allegations of domestic violence will proceed to court in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service was involved in the charging?

Harriet Harman: It is sometimes thought that the police think, "Perhaps we should not put this case forward to the prosecution because it might drop the case. Therefore, there is no point." It might be that it is not clear about which are the best charges or what the best evidence is.
	There are five pilot schemes, and we are examining how the prosecution can take forward charges rather than the police. The schemes will show whether by working together at a local level we can have the right charges and a better outcome. In difficult cases, such as domestic violence or where there is an element of racial aggravation, it is important to get the charges right at the outset. There is nothing more demoralising for victims than to see downgraded the charge as laid, or for it to be dropped altogether. The work that has been done in Halifax, for example, shows that the process has been taken forward successfully.

William Cash: The Prime Minister said yesterday that crime rates had fallen under the current Government since 1997, but that is simply not the case in my constituency and many others. Much of that failure relates to the manner in which criminal charges are brought against defendants. Does not the Solicitor–General agree that the indictment by the recent inspectorate report on the CPS established the existence of understaffing and weak management—yet another failure on public services by this Government—and, furthermore, that the CPS fails to respond to defence correspondence and to disclose evidence? Did she note in last week's edition of The Sunday Times the remarks of the defence lawyer who said with regard to CPS failures:
	"As a defence lawyer, I think it is great. As a taxpayer, it is disgraceful"?
	In other words, criminals are walking free and the Prime Minister was wrong.

Harriet Harman: That particular issue concerns a defence lawyer who was trying to drum up business for himself and, more importantly, to plug the book that he had recently published. None the less, the hon. Gentleman made some serious points about the historic understaffing of the CPS, which has had insufficient lawyers and administration staff, and the fact that improvements have been needed. The inspectorate reports show that those improvements are under way. I refer him to the evidence that the Director of Public Prosecutions gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last month, which could allow us to have cautious optimism that we will get the independent, fair and effective prosecution system that he and I both want.

Banking Services (Small Businesses)

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, in presenting the Competition Commission's report on the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises, and my response and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, our starting point and guiding objective is our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency, innovation and competitiveness.
	This is underpinned by our statement last July that, just as in the last Parliament it was right to make monetary decisions independent of political influence under an independent authority—first de facto and then de jure—so too it is right to make competition decisions—de facto and then de jure—independent of political interference, with Government accepting the decisions of independent competition authorities. Having already moved de facto to such a regime in the way in which we handle merger cases, in the forthcoming enterprise Bill we will legislate to make decisions on mergers and complex monopolies independent.
	There are more than 3.5 million small businesses in the United Kingdom, representing 55 per cent. of jobs, 50 per cent. of all business turnover and £1 trillion of economic activity each year. The access to finance and quality of service that they receive from banks are critically important to their productivity and prosperity and that of the British economy. So when the Cruickshank report on banking services found little prospect of effective competition emerging in the small business market, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I referred small business banking to the Competition Commission for a full investigation. Its report is published and laid before the House today.
	Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there are three necessary tests, all of which must be met before it can be concluded that a complex monopoly is operating that is harmful to the public interest. The first test is that at least a quarter of the services under consideration must be supplied by a group of persons. The Competition Commission found that the eight largest clearing banks supplied at least a quarter of banking services in the UK, with the four largest providing 86 per cent. of services, and that that degree of concentration had changed little over the past 10 years. The second test is that the group of persons must be found to conduct its affairs
	"as in any way to prevent, restrict or distort competition".
	The third test is that the restriction or distortion of competition caused by the complex monopoly must be shown to operate against the public interest.
	Let me set out the Competition Commission's findings. First, it finds that the banks concerned had failed to compete on price by refusing to pay interest on current accounts and only paying low rates of interest on smaller, short-term deposit accounts; and that they had been maintaining a structure of charges not related to costs.
	Secondly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had reduced choice, and the ability of small businesses to make savings on bank charges, by restricting small businesses to business rather than personal bank accounts; failing to inform small businesses about possible benefits from set-off and sweep facilities which allow for credit balances in one account to be set off against debit balances in another; and requiring small businesses wanting a deposit account or a loan also to hold a current account.
	Thirdly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it hard for small businesses to compare the deals available from different banks by failing to provide small businesses with a breakdown of interest charges on their current account and offering discounts only to selected customers.
	Fourthly, the Competition Commission finds that those banks had made it more difficult and expensive for new entrants and alternative suppliers to attract small businesses by confining free banking to business start-ups and to small businesses that had moved from another bank, and negotiating reduced charges for small businesses that were likely to switch banks.
	The Competition Commission concludes that all eight of the largest clearing banks in the UK were found to be carrying out one or more of those practices, which operated against the public interest. Moreover, it finds that
	"the average return on equity between 1998 and 2000 is 36 per cent. compared with an estimated cost of equity of about 15 per cent. We however, recognise that a number of adjustments should be made to these figures."
	It continues:
	"despite the cautious approach we have adopted to a number of those factors, we have concluded that the four largest clearing groups . . . are together charging excessive prices . . . and therefore making excessive profits in England and Wales of about £725 million a year over the last three years with adverse effects on SMEs."
	Profits are absolutely central to the effective and efficient working of a market economy. They are the engine in the dynamic process of competition, innovation and meeting the needs of consumers. Where high profits are due to relative efficiency rather than monopoly—as the Competition Commission found in the case of Northern bank—the question of whether high profits are against the public interest does not arise.
	Where high profits are derived from an absence of competition or through a complex monopoly situation, and are earned by overcharging customers, the effectiveness of the market is reduced. Indeed, as the Competition Commission observed, where the consumers concerned—in this case small and medium-sized companies—are themselves operating in a highly competitive market, the adverse effects on the public interest are exacerbated.
	Because practices carried out by the eight main clearing banks—and the overcharging by the four largest in England and Wales—were found by the Competition Commission to operate against the public interest, it recommends that all eight clearing banks identified make a number of changes to their practices to help promote competition in this market, including being required to facilitate the switching of accounts; providing—if requested—a portable credit history; making the charges for their services more transparent; investigating the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches; and extending the business banking code.
	Taken together, the Competition Commission states that those remedies, along with others that it proposes, would help to promote greater competition in banking services.
	The Competition Commission also wants
	"a decisive and significant shift towards what"
	the commission
	"consider to be competitive levels",
	and it states:
	"competition and entry has to date not been effective in reducing excess profits and prices, nor is the immediate prospect of new entry in"
	the commission's
	"view sufficient to reduce excess profits and prices in a reasonable time period."
	It recommends a further transitional remedy requiring the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales, where evidence of excessive charges was found, to offer all small businesses one of three possible options: a current account that pays interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent; or a current account free of money transmission charges; or a choice between the two.
	The Competition Commission concludes that since certain current banking practices have operated against the public interest, and led to small businesses paying more than they should for services, it would be wrong to let the situation continue for several more years until the behavioural remedies to promote competition took effect.
	From our starting point—our belief in competition as the spur to efficiency—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I considered the Competition Commission's report carefully. We examined the recommendations and remedies proposed to promote competition, to encourage new banking suppliers to enter the market and directly to address the lack of choice and information. Until the competition authorities are fully independent, the Government have legal responsibility for decisions on complex monopoly cases. In preparing the Government's response, we sought and received additional advice on the report's technical analysis and recommendations from independent experts.
	The advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, which is published today, agrees with the Competition Commission that the limited extent and difficulty of switching bank accounts is a key factor in inhibiting competition in the small business banking market. In his advice, which I am also publishing today, Sir Bryan Carsberg, the former chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board and former Director General of Fair Trading, concluded that
	"the framework adopted by the Commission is sound and would be accepted as appropriate by most independent experts".
	Like the Competition Commission, we recognise that for banks to be robust and play their key role in the economy, it is necessary and desirable, at certain points in the economic cycle, for them to make higher than average profits. However, although we are pro-profit, we are also pro-competition, and we cannot be on the side of any monopoly or other behaviour that unfairly restricts competition in markets.
	The Competition Commission explicitly concludes that practices by banks operate against the public interest. Having carefully considered its report, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I agree that action must be taken to promote greater competition.
	First, the Competition Commission recommends that banks be required to facilitate the switching of accounts to enable small businesses to move accounts from one bank to another easily and quickly by completing a substantial percentage of all account switching within five working days, by publishing their performance objectives and efficiency in achieving them, and by imposing no charges for closing accounts. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
	Secondly, the commission recommends that banks be required, if requested by a small business, to provide a portable credit history—a statement of the business's credit performance that can be passed to other banks and which will improve the prospects for smaller competitors and new entrants into the banking sector. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
	Thirdly, the commission recommends that banks be required to stop bundling services and imposing requirements on small businesses to hold a current account in order to obtain a loan or deposit account. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
	Fourthly, the commission recommends that banks be required to make their service charges more transparent by routinely publishing their standard tariff prices for money transmission services and for interest paid on current and short-term deposit accounts, allowing small businesses easily to compare charges. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
	Fifthly, because lack of access to a bank branch represents a key barrier to many substantial new competitors entering the market, the commission recommends that banks be required to investigate the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches, and to publish their findings within a year. We agree with the commission's recommendation.
	The Julius report concluded that the principles underlying the voluntary code for banking and mortgages for households should be extended to small businesses. Consequently, the Competition Commission made several other informal suggestions, some of which are incorporated in the new code announced by the British Bankers Association last week, which we welcome. The Competition Commission recommends that other suggestions, such as banks improving their procedures for dealing with errors and paying compensation, should be added to the code.
	Those and other remedies proposed by the Competition Commission are in pursuit of competition and we ask the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to implement the recommendations speedily.
	In seeking an earlier and decisive switch towards a better service for small businesses, the Competition Commission considered more radical proposals—for example, divestment of bank branches and small and medium-sized enterprise banking businesses, whereby banks would be forced to give over some of their branches or customers to other banks. It also considered a licence fee, an obligatory fund and a windfall tax. The Competition Commission rejected those proposals, and we agree with that rejection.
	The Competition Commission recommends a transitional remedy that would not prevent companies from earning high profits but would simply ensure that they could do so only as a result of a genuine competitive advantage—a remedy that
	"imposes no restriction on new entrants . . . and should not interfere with the natural emergence of desirable competition".
	Thus the commission recommends, and we agree, as a transitional measure, that the four largest banks operating current accounts in England and Wales be required to offer any small and medium-sized enterprise either a current account paying interest of at least the Bank of England base rate minus 2.5 per cent, or a current account free of money transmission charges, or a choice between the two. The Director General of Fair Trading recommends, and we agree, that we ask him to obtain undertakings from the banks to implement that remedy.
	The commission suggests that all remedies be put in place within six months. We hope that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to reach an earlier agreement on the transitional remedy. The commission also recommends that the Director General of Fair Trading review all the remedies three years after their implementation. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, there is flexibility for a review to take place sooner. We state our view that if at any time within the three years the Office of Fair Trading observes more effective competition emerging, or banks have proposals that they believe would make for a more competitive environment, an early review could and should take place.
	Our goal is to create an environment where new entrants can compete with existing banks on a fair basis and both can secure more competitive services for small businesses. I urge the banks to work with the Director General of Fair Trading to achieve what is in everybody's interest: a better service and a fairer deal for Britain's 3.5 million small businesses.

Michael Howard: I thank the Chancellor for affording me some advance notice of the statement and the large report that he has published today. However, may I also register my protest at the fact that this statement did not appear on the annunciator until seven minutes past 12, giving hon. Members only 23 minutes' notice that the Chancellor intended to make a statement today, whereas this morning's newspapers and news broadcasts were full of speculation that he may well make such a statement. The other statement that is to be made today was announced on the annunciator at 11 o'clock this morning.
	There was absolutely no reason why this statement should not have appeared on the annunciator at the same time. It is typical of the contempt that the Chancellor shows for the House every time he comes before it. I hope he will not suggest that there is any question of market sensitivity, because, as I said, the newspapers and news broadcasts this morning were full of speculation that such a statement might be made and, anyway, I would expect the Chancellor to know by now that the markets can do in 23 minutes what they can do in an hour and a half.
	Can the Chancellor confirm that the Government received the report of the Competition Commission five months ago? Can he explain to the House the reasons for the delay in publishing it? Was that delay entirely due to the widely reported in-fighting between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, or were there other factors and, if so, what were they? Would it not have been very much better had the Government published the commission's report when they received it, so that there could have been consultation on its recommendations before the Government made their decision?
	On the substance of the statement, of course I entirely agree with the Chancellor that the best protection that can be given to the consumer, including the consumer of banking services, is competition. Is it not the case that since the commission began its inquiry, there has been a welcome and not insignificant enhancement of competition in this sector, with the entry of HBOS, Abbey National and the National Australia group into this sector of the market? Can he clarify whether the recommendations made by the commission, which he has accepted, will apply to all the banks in this sector, including new entrants, or only to the biggest four banks, which, as he said, cover 86 per cent. of the market?
	More widely, would not the greatest contribution that the Chancellor could make to enhance competition in the provision of banking services be to work for the relaxation of the provisions of the UCITS directive, which inhibit the development of money market funds in this country, along the lines of the measures that have been so successful in the United States?
	I accept, nevertheless, that when competition is not working effectively, it is right that action should be taken to improve it. I, too, would accept most of the recommendations of the Competition Commission. There are some that require further consideration than can be given in half an hour, and we shall give them that consideration. For the most part, however—although not in every respect—it would appear that the Competition Commission has arrived at some sensible proposals, and the Chancellor is right to accept them.
	Will the Chancellor tell us a little more about some of the recommendations? For example, he says that he accepts the commission's recommendation that banks be required to investigate
	"the feasibility, costs and benefits of a national scheme for sharing branches"
	and to publish their findings within a year. What action does he have in mind for banks that are either unable or unwilling to conduct such a feasibility study?
	Does not the Chancellor recognise, as he stands here today posing as the champion of small business, that he and his Government have done enormous damage to the small business sector in this country by the piles of regulation that they have imposed on small business—4,642 last year alone: one for every 25 minutes of every working day in the year? Is that not the main factor that is impairing the ability of small business to prosper? Is not the Chancellor failing completely to take any action to remedy it?

Gordon Brown: If the shadow Chancellor supports us on the competition measures that we are putting forward today, he should have been able to tell us that he supported the switching of accounts, the portable credit histories, the changes in the British banking code and the transitional remedies. He noticeably refused to do so. If he is not prepared to support those measures, he will find himself at odds not only with the small business organisations of this country—including the Federation of Small Businesses—but with the Competition Commission.
	It was the Conservative party that said, in 2001:
	"Competitions decisions are best left to independent regulators and the competition authorities."
	The Competition Commission recommends all these measures. The shadow Chancellor should, therefore, be saying that he will back up the competition authorities, but he has not been prepared to do that. We have suggested a number of remedies, particularly the transitional remedies, on which he has been absolutely silent.
	On the question of the publication of the competition report, it was received in October. We then put it to the Director General of Fair Trading for advice, and also asked Sir Bryan Carsberg to work on it. We have considered all the recommendations in detail. There have never been so many recommendations in one report on banking as there are in this report, and we have considered them all carefully. I think that the House would prefer that we proceeded in that way on this matter.
	Equally, as for a statement to the House on this matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself was the Minister responsible for the City and financial services in the 1980s. No monopolies and mergers statement was brought before the House. We are bringing a statement before the House in a way that has never been done before. I also have to tell the shadow Chancellor, who is a barrister, that we have had to satisfy all the legal technicalities involved in the publication of the report, which also goes to the Stock Exchange—[Interruption.]—none of it has appeared in the press—and which also has to go to the banks themselves.
	There now follows a period during which the banks will be approached by the Director General of Fair Trading on the basis of the undertakings relating both to the transitional and to the other remedies. He will then report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to me.
	The shadow Chancellor asked about the changes that had taken place, with a number of companies announcing that they wanted to enter the market for small business. That, as he will discover, is dealt with in both the Competition Commission's report and in what we have received from the Director General of Fair Trading. The report says
	"We do not believe that"
	behavioural remedies
	"will have sufficient impact on competition within the next two to three years to ensure that the incidence of excessive prices for banking services . . . of the four largest clearing groups in England and Wales . . . would disappear in a reasonable period of time."
	That is exactly why the Competition Commission has proposed the transitional remedies on which the shadow Chancellor—because he has not faced up to these questions—is silent this morning.
	The report says that
	"lack of competition has permitted and would continue to permit overcharging of SMEs for these services."
	The Competition Commission does not believe that, even given additional new entrants into the market, behavioural remedies—entry and more competition—will of themselves have sufficient effect on services to small businesses over the next two or three years. That is why the Director General of Fair Trading has recommended the transitional remedies.
	I hope that, just as after a time consensus was reached on the independence of the Bank of England and acceptance of its interest rate decisions, consensus can now be reached on the independent competition authorities. I hope that after some reflection the Conservative party will agree not only that competition is right in general, but that the specific remedies that have been recommended are necessary if we are to do our best by the 3.5 million small businesses in this country.

John McFall: The Select Committee on the Treasury will welcome the report. In the next month or so, we shall be inviting the banks to give evidence on what they have done since the Cruickshank report.
	Is it not the case, however, that too many small businesses are still being charged as much as 250 to 300 times more than is justifiable? Is it not the case that not enough small-scale risk capital is available, and very little venture capital? Those problems must be tackled if we are to achieve our twin aims of more jobs and more productivity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks will have to go on playing their part and come to terms with their wider role, responsibility and duties to the communities from which they derive their funds?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and welcome the work that his Select Committee is doing on banking.
	The banks—I pay tribute to them—are working with us on the creation of venture capital funds in the regions and the high-unemployment communities. Britain is now more advanced than other countries in terms of its development of its venture capital industry in the regions, and I hope that the banks will continue to work with us to solve the problem of the venture capital funding gap in some high-unemployment areas.
	Let me refer to some of the general measures. As I have said, there are 3.5 million small businesses in the country. It is estimated that they were overcharged by some £725 million in 1998-2000, although that depends on the interest rate that was prevalent at the time. Both the transitional and the long-term remedies take account of the problem. I hope that the banks will work with us to find a solution to what most Members on both sides of the House would agree has been a perennial difficulty for small businesses in all our constituencies, some of which contain 3,000, 4,000 or even 5,000 of them—many very small indeed. We are in a position to make progress, and I hope there will be consensus on the report's findings.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the Chancellor's statement, and the Government's commitment to prompt and full implementation of the report's recommendations.
	Does the Chancellor agree that the report fully vindicates the findings of the Cruickshank report, published two years ago, despite their rubbishing by the banks themselves? Does he agree with the central conclusion of that report that there are profound competition problems in this sector as a result of complex monopoly, the leading clearers' control of the central clearing system and, indeed, the banks' continued enjoyment of regulatory privileges—for instance, the fact that the Government are their lender of last resort? Does the Chancellor accept that basic analysis?
	Does the Chancellor also accept that his cautious approach—it has taken two years, since the publication of the Cruickshank report, to reach the conclusions— has meant that the small business sector had roughly £1.5 billion of excess profits taken out of it by the banking system? That has swamped the positive incentives that he put back into small business, such as £200 million for the small business research and development tax credit. As the Office of Fair Trading report rejects the idea of a levy on banks, what measures does he propose in order to retrieve some of the £1.5 billion excess profit of the past two years and to put it back into small business?
	The Cruickshank analysis has been vindicated. It suggested that there was up to £5 billion of excess profits altogether, much of it taken from personal consumers as well as small business. In light of that, when do the Government propose to implement their long-promised recommendations to introduce Paycom, a payments regulator? Ministers have told me in response to written and oral questions and Adjournment debates for more than two years that that is imminent, but it has yet to materialise.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a long-standing interest in such matters. I am also grateful to him for dealing with the specifics, unlike the shadow Chancellor.
	First, Ms DeAnne Julius's work on the banking code is moving ahead as a result of the Cruickshank report. Secondly, we are committed to opening up the money transmission services. That is Government policy. Thirdly, however, we reject a windfall tax, as does the Competition Commission. The previous Conservative Government imposed the only windfall tax on banks, and that was for the same reason—to deal with the failure of banks to pay interest on current accounts at a time of high interest rates in the early 1980s.
	We believe that because the injury is to small businesses themselves, the best thing is to reduce costs for small businesses. That is why the option for the transitional period is either to pay a rate of interest on current accounts or to provide free banking services for the money transmission services that are involved. Both of those could be worth substantial amounts of money to a small business if properly implemented, and it is now for the Director General of Fair Trading to work on that.
	Our proposals are directed at the problem, which is that small businesses must get a better deal. As I said, I hope that we can make progress quickly on the recommendations. Although the Competition Commission says that there are six months in which the undertakings can be discussed, we hope—and I believe—that the Director General of Fair Trading also hopes that we can move forward sooner.
	As for incentives for small business, the hon. Gentleman will have noted my statements in the past few weeks in which I have made it clear that we are determined to do more to help small businesses to amass the funds to invest and to be able to seek equity, to start exporting and to hire new employees. That is our aim, and it will be advanced by measures in the Budget.

James Plaskitt: The 5,000 small businesses in my constituency will welcome the Chancellor's statement. The commission's report is a serious document. It basically finds the banks guilty of monopoly exploitation. In view of that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the banks should respond quickly to the findings? They should at least do something about charges and current account terms in less than the six months envisaged by the report. That would make a start on repaying more than £700 million-worth of overcharges.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee. I hope that its work on this matter will yield results.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we should make progress as quickly as possible. All hon. Members know that we are dealing with a long-standing grievance and, indeed, a long-standing problem; the evidence is that action should be taken. However, I stress to him and the 5,000 businesses operating in his constituency that will benefit from the measures announced today that a healthy and profitable banking sector is in everyone's interests. There will be periods in the economic cycle in which banks should and will have to earn above average profits. Where those arise from the absence of competition, we should act. Therefore, I hope that all the recommendations that are central to the improvement of competition can be followed through.
	On the transitional remedy, my hon. Friend will note that the Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce said only a few days ago:
	"To stop this overcharging, we would advocate that the Secretary of State must cap the charges of the big four banks until the competition is more secure."
	Our remedy is more flexible than that, but it is clear that many of the business organisations are demanding action, and demanding action now. We can be both pro profit for banks and pro competition.

Teddy Taylor: In making such major changes, will the Chancellor bear in mind the danger of undermining one of our most successful institutions, which has high standards that are greatly appreciated by people all over the world? Does he accept that, with regard to small businesses, the banks have to carry a massive burden of bad debts and failed businesses, and that it is only fair to take that into account? What are the figures?
	On competition, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Clydesdale bank in Scotland—happily owned by Australians—pays interest on its current accounts to people like me? Is it not unfair to undermine the banks by talking only about the costs and not the massive burdens? Will he give a figure on the banks' bad debts and failed businesses?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has taken an interest in these matters at a British and European level for some time. He seems to have a more intimate knowledge of the banking system than the shadow Chancellor.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the assessment of the methodology that was used by the Competition Commission, and what allowance has been made for the large amount of bad debts that have to be written off by the banks. The Competition Commission also took into account in its methodology the effects of the economic cycle in which, at certain points, higher than average profits can be expected to be earned. There is also the issue of the allowance made for intangible assets by the methodology adopted by the Competition Commission.
	We have considered these matters carefully, as has the Competition Commission. It is because the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman are rightly raised by members of the public and the banks that we asked Sir Bryan Carsberg, a renowned international expert on these issues, to look at the methodology. The notation with the documentation that the House has shows that he has expressed his confidence in the general approach taken. I believe that people will reach exactly the conclusion that we reached when they look at the figures that are available.
	On the general point about banks, of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Britain wants and should be proud of a healthy, profitable banking sector, but it cannot be at the expense of little competition or a complex monopoly. When that is the case, it is our duty to take action. The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Back Benches and has done for these past 20 years; I think that he will agree that it is sad that when this problem was put to Conservative Ministers in the 1990s, they did nothing about it.

Barry Gardiner: For 10 years during that period, and before I entered this House, I ran a business in the City and suffered exactly the sort of banking disservice that was provided to small and medium-sized enterprises such as mine. I welcome this report with the enthusiasm of somebody who suffered under those practices for so long.
	My right hon. Friend referred to radical measures which have been discussed and considered in the report. In particular, I would have urged him to pursue the windfall tax, but I take the reasons and the rationale behind his decision not to pursue that course and go out of line with the regulator's suggestions. However, if there is any dilatoriness on the part of the banks in implementing the recommendations, sorting out their service to the public and repaying the extra profits that they have made through an improvement of service, I urge my right hon. Friend to hold that option up his sleeve.

Michael Fabricant: Bravissimo!

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman should not be so unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who at least has views on the matter that he is prepared to express, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who had nothing to add to the debate.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that action is needed now. That is why the proposals have been put forward under such a time scale. It is also the case that the new banking code proposals—I applaud the banks—were made in the past few days. Many of the proposals are a welcome advance on the previous position, and I welcome the specific recommendations in them. The Competition Commission believes that there should be further reforms of the banking code and has made informal suggestions about compensation and other matters where it feels there are errors that should be taken into account. Equally, we can move forward quite quickly with the other recommendations.
	I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the case for a windfall tax, as I have explained. Perhaps the Conservative party will be the only party to propose that, as it imposed a windfall tax on the banks in the early 1980s. It is important to say that we are both pro profit—we need the banks to be profitable—and pro competition.

Julian Lewis: Does the Chancellor accept that the statement that he began reading at 12.30 pm was one of the longest that he has made since he took office other than on Budget day? Does he accept that that means that it must have been a considerable time in the drafting? Does he also accept that he has given a totally inadequate response to the shadow Chancellor on his discourtesy in notifying the House at only seven minutes past 12 that such a statement would take place? Will he give an undertaking not to show such discourtesy to the House in the future? Finally, does he recognise that that was not only a discourtesy to the House and to the Opposition, but that it particularly upset his friends in the Liberal Democrats, whose Treasury spokesman was not even here to hear his statement?

Gordon Brown: I take it that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a point about the Liberal Democrats by a very circuitous route. The fact of the matter is that this Government are bringing the Competition Commission report to the House with a statement, which he should applaud. We are also the Government who are publishing all the documents: the report of the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Bryan Carsberg's report and today's report. We are doing so in a way that does not offend the normal procedures that must legally be pursued for Competition Commission reports. I would hope that the shadow Chancellor, as a lawyer, would begin to understand that.
	All these points about procedure from Conservative Members are designed to obscure the most important fact to come out of this discussion—that they cannot even tell us at this point whether they support the major remedies that are proposed.

Jim Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Could he clarify what action is proposed to reimburse small businesses? I am sure that he knows that although most businesses are overcharged, they do not receive 100 per cent. reimbursement. Will he say a little more about that?

Gordon Brown: We are proposing action for now and for the future; we are not proposing retrospective action and neither was the Competition Commission report. We have said that competition decisions should be independent of political interference. I hope that, in the light of what the Conservative party said at the election and what the Liberal Democrat party has said consistently, there can be all-party consensus that these decisions are best made by independent authorities under rules established by the House in legislation. While we prepare to legislate for that, we have the legal responsibility to announce and make those decisions.
	We have done everything in our power. We appointed Sir Bryan Carsberg and consulted the director general, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have studied in detail all the recommendations. It is right to go ahead now to implement those recommendations, which have been put forward by the Competition Commission, supported by the Director General of Fair Trading—the methodology having been assessed by Sir Bryan Carsberg. I hope that there can be consensus on that.

John Redwood: I welcome the Chancellor's strong commitment to competition and the remedies that will improve the service to small businesses. I wish that his belief in competition would extend to the currencies that they might bank in so that they could continue to have the choice of the pound or the euro. Is he at all worried that if the banks plan sharing branches at the same time as their revenues are cut, their response will be another big round of branch closures? What will he do to stop that getting out of hand and damaging the service, which we would not want?

Gordon Brown: I see no need for that to happen, but it is precisely so that the details can be studied that the Competition Commission has recommended—we support that recommendation—that the banks should prepare a report for the Director General of Fair Trading. I appreciate that that is one concern that will be expressed. We believe that it is a soluble problem. The right way to proceed is for the banks and the director general to consider those detailed undertakings and for the work to be done on that. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman supports not only the independence of the Competition Commission but its recommendations in general.

John Redwood: indicated assent

Gordon Brown: The recommendations are detailed and it is good that we have the right hon. Gentleman's support. I hope that we can now have the support of the shadow Chancellor.

Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because a successful small firms sector is essential as the seedbed of future growth, the banks, by gaining excess profits—in effect, by ripping off small companies—have damaged the enterprise culture? Notwithstanding his earlier remarks, does he think that, in those circumstances, a withholding or a windfall tax might have been used to provide the venture capital and the higher risk financing that those small firms so desperately need?

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend was formerly a business adviser. I also know that during the next few days strong feelings on these matters will be expressed in every phone-in programme and letters column because people feel strongly about the costs of banking services and about the failure in many cases to pay interest on current accounts.
	However, we have a balanced set of recommendations that point our way in both the present and the future. I am in favour neither of the withholding tax in Europe nor of the windfall tax that has been examined by the Competition Commission. The commission examined and rejected the tax—as we are right to do—but I hope that we can move ahead with agreement on all the other measures that offer the prospect of opening up competition in the small business market while giving small businesses an immediate remedy as we wait for that competition to take effect.

Michael Weir: Neither the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru nor any of the Ulster parties received an advance copy of the Chancellor's statement. Surely it is unacceptable that some parties received an advance copy while others did not.
	That said, on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the recommendations as a step forward. We are especially interested in the Chancellor's remarks about a national network of sharing branches. Does he realise that, due to branch-network closure programmes over the past few years, there are no bank branches at all in many rural and some inner-city areas? When he discusses those matters with the banks, will he consider proposals for extending banking to those areas to encourage small businesses to set up and continue there? When there are no bank branches, it is difficult for such businesses to continue to operate—especially those that are cash-intensive.

Gordon Brown: It is precisely for those reasons that there is work to make the network available to new entrants. It is also for those reasons that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has responsibility for small business, has taken a great interest in bank branches in rural areas. The Post Office also has a role.
	I ask the House to bear in mind not only that, historically, statements about the Competition Commission, or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, have not been made in the House—that was the practice followed by the previous Government—but that the shadow Chancellor asked me a question. I wrote to him this morning, stating that:
	"The reports contain information about particular businesses"—
	individual companies—
	"which until the report is published is confidential under section 133 of the Fair Trading Act and onward disclosure is prohibited under this section."
	I have to take account of the legal requirements on me when I make information available before a statement. The previous Conservative Government never made statements on such matters; they must have had a good reason at the time.

Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement because—as perhaps he can confirm—many thousands of businesses in my constituency might be being overcharged by between £250 and £300 a year for banking services. Although Members on both sides of the House—but not the shadow Chancellor—support the proposals, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Labour Government who are listening to the needs of small businesses through the operation of the Small Business Council and other bodies? It is this Government who are standing up for the interests of small businesses and taking action to promote enterprise and competition. It is this Government who are succeeding for small businesses where the previous Government failed.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are more small businesses in this country, and the measures that we are adopting are designed to encourage even more. He is also right to say that, if the overcharging from 1998 to 2000 is in the order of £725 million a year—of course that depends on the interest rates in operation at any particular time—many small businesses are paying a high tariff for their banking services, which could be removed with this remedy, or they are not receiving interest on their current accounts, which the banks can now consider. The flexibility of our remedies allows banks to make a choice between those two.
	I believe that the Liberal and nationalist parties are prepared to support our measures. It is unfortunate that, although the putative shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), has expressed support for them, the shadow Chancellor himself has still not said what he thinks.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to give everyone who wants to the opportunity to speak, but I ask hon. Members to be brief and ask one question, and one question only.

James Clappison: The Chancellor gave the costs of overcharging as £725 million. What is his estimate of the total cost to business of additional Government regulation imposed in the past two Parliaments? Are those who say that it is £5 billion right?

Gordon Brown: The Minister of State at the Cabinet Office announced only a few days ago the scrapping of a whole series of regulations that had been introduced by the Conservative Government and other previous Governments. We are working with the small business community in our regulatory taskforce to remove regulation. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we cut the rate of small business tax from 23p to 20p—to the lowest rate in our history—and that we introduced a 10p starting rate for small businesses on profits up to £10,000, and a rate between 10p and 20p on profits from £10,000 to £50,000. He should also remember that, despite all the talk from the Conservative party, it was the Labour Government who cut capital gains tax.

Gareth Thomas: Small businesses in my constituency will see the publication of the report and the Chancellor's actions as vindication of their deep-seated concerns over many years about excessive profit-taking by the largest four banks. Is there any hope of his predecessors as Chancellor heading to Palace Green to apologise for failing to take the action that he has taken?

Gordon Brown: That is a matter for previous Chancellors. My hon. Friend is right to say that it was time to take action. It is regrettable that at the time when small businesses were complaining most, especially in the early 1990s, so little was done to help them. It is possible to build a consensus around developing the enterprise culture, and I would have thought that all parties would now be prepared to join it. My remarks are directed to the shadow Chancellor, and I seek his views on our proposals.

Michael Fabricant: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, I welcome the statement, but as with all such matters, the devil is in the detail. It is unfortunate that the Chancellor had cloth ears when my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking.
	It is a great disappointment to me personally, and no doubt to others who are listening to our debate, that the Chancellor did not say anything about funds deposited by ZANU-PF, Mugabe and others in this country, which could have been seized, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for the Chancellor to answer that question.

John Burnett: When does the Chancellor believe that the cartel of the money transmission service or central clearing will finally be ended?

Gordon Brown: We will announce detailed proposals on that matter in due course.

David Laws: Has the Chancellor concluded that there is clear evidence of monopolistic practice in the personal banking market, and if so, what is the timetable for taking action?

Gordon Brown: That is not the subject of the statement, which is about small business banking. We referred the matter to the Competition Commission, which has produced a report that is now before the House. Along with the commission, we are proposing to take action. As for the personal banking sector, that is not the subject of the review.

Zimbabwe

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Zimbabwe.
	Yesterday, Robert Mugabe was declared the official winner in the presidential election. That result should, however, surprise no one. ZANU-PF had long been bent on achieving precisely that outcome by any means and at all costs. The Zimbabwean Government have subjected their electorate to two years of violence and intimidation. They have harassed Opposition candidates and supporters, manipulated the voters' rolls and restricted access to polling stations. They have exploited every instrument of the state—the military, the police, media, youth militias and the bureaucracy—to distort the outcome of the election.
	ZANU-PF did its utmost to conceal the extent of its violence and malpractice from the eyes of the world. It excluded European Union election observers, monopolised domestic television and radio, and restricted international media organisations, including the BBC. None of those actions were the actions of a party confident of its ability to win a free or fair election. The elections can be judged only by agreed international standards, not least the declaration signed by Commonwealth Heads of Government, chaired by President Mugabe, in Harare in 1991.
	Only three months before the election, in December last year, on the basis of the principles of the Harare declaration, the Commonwealth concluded that
	"the situation in Zimbabwe constitutes a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's fundamental political values and the rule of law".
	That conclusion was reinforced in January, and again a week before the polls closed. The situation got worse during the election.
	A key yardstick by which any electoral process must be judged is impartial electoral administration, but there was nothing impartial about the process in Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe staffed Zimbabwe's electoral supervisory commission with partisan army officers. The names of who could and could not vote were not settled until just days before the election, amidst allegations of fraudulent practice. During the election itself, the electoral commission reduced the number of polling booths in urban areas to restrict the Opposition vote. In many rural areas, the Opposition say that their polling agents and monitors were prevented from inspecting ballot boxes before voting started. Others were not allowed inside polling stations. Many Opposition workers say they were abducted, detained or arrested by supporters of the ruling party or the security forces.
	As the House will know, while European Union and other observers were excluded from observing the electoral process, some groups of election observers were allowed into the country. Earlier today, I received the preliminary report of the Commonwealth observers group, which comes to a number of coruscating conclusions about the conduction of the election. It said:
	"The violence and intimidation created a climate of fear and suspicion."
	It said that the police
	"appeared to be high-handed in dealing with the MDC and lenient towards supporters of . . . ZANU-PF. This failure to impartially enforce the law seriously calls into question the application of the rule of law in Zimbabwe."
	It said:
	"We were concerned that the legislative framework within which the elections were conducted . . . was basically flawed."
	It went on:
	"Limitations on the freedom of speech, movement and . . . association prevented the opposition from campaigning freely."
	It continued:
	"We . . . found that thousands of Zimbabwean citizens were disenfranchised".
	It concluded:
	"All the foregoing brings us to the conclusion that the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors."
	That set of conclusions has been confirmed in a report by parliamentary observers from the Southern African Development Community. It makes similar, very serious criticisms of the process, and concludes that
	"the electoral process could not be said to adequately comply with the Norms and Standards for Elections in the SADC region."
	I shall place both reports in the House of Commons Library.
	Zimbabweans have plainly been denied their fundamental right to choose by whom they are governed. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing my admiration for the people of Zimbabwe—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—whose faith in democracy was so strong that they queued for days to vote, in the face of police violence. In some cases, they were denied the right to vote. They are the true democrats, but they deserve a great deal better.
	What adds to the tragedy is that, until recently, Zimbabwe was the pride of Africa—the bread basket of the continent. Robert Mugabe's disastrous economic polices have severely damaged his own country. Unemployment is running at 70 per cent. and inflation at 112 per cent. Last year, its gross domestic product declined by 10 per cent., and the same decline is expected this year. In the space of two years, Robert Mugabe's prime achievement will have been to contract Zimbabwe's economy by at least a quarter.
	The failure of the electoral process in Zimbabwe is a tragedy not just for Zimbabwe, but for the people of southern Africa as a whole. The rand of the Republic of South Africa depreciated by 40 per cent. in the past year. The people of southern Africa deserve better, too. Their Governments will inevitably bear most of the responsibility in helping the region to recover, and we shall of course continue to work with them in that task.
	The House will know that, on 18 February, the European Union decided to impose sanctions, which were targeted against the leadership of ZANU-PF. They included a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will travel to Barcelona this afternoon, and at the summit to be held in that city we will review the position with our EU partners.
	We are also working closely with the United States Government. They have already announced a travel ban on the ZANU-PF leadership and are considering a possible broadening of sanctions, along the lines of those already enforced by the EU. We will continue to work closely with them, and with our G8 and SADC partners.
	The House will know that, at the turn of the year, Her Majesty's Government took the view, on evidence available then, that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth. Events since then have simply confirmed that judgment. Regrettably, Commonwealth Heads of Government decided not to follow that course, but to appoint instead a troika of South Africa, Nigeria and Australia to decide on Zimbabwe's Commonwealth status. We await its conclusions in the light of the strongly worded Commonwealth observers group report, to which I have already drawn the House's attention, and the more detailed report that the observers group promises.
	In the face of the deprivation heaped on them by their own Government, it is crucial that we and the international community stand by the people of Zimbabwe. We will therefore maintain our programme of humanitarian assistance, and our assistance in the fight against HIV-AIDS. However, I tell the House that we will continue to oppose any accessing by the Government of Zimbabwe of international financial resources until a more representative Government are in place.
	Robert Mugabe may claim to have won this election, but the people of Zimbabwe have lost. We are faced with a leader who is determined to ignore the international community, to ignore his people and to ignore the grave consequences of his actions. Change will have to come to Zimbabwe. One day—I hope soon—we can look forward to a democratic Government of Zimbabwe, acting in the interests of all their peoples, and taking their rightful place in a modern Africa.
	Some have sought to suggest that this is a conflict between Africa and the west, black against white and south against north. I reject that totally. At its heart, this is a matter of the universal worldwide principle of the right of people, wherever they live, freely to determine their own future. That principle has been flouted in Zimbabwe, and all democrats should speak with one voice in condemning what has taken place.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement today on Mr. Mugabe's election result and for letting me see a copy in advance.
	I refer to Mr. Mugabe's election result rather than his victory, because the word "victory" has glamorous connotations. Yesterday's result in Zimbabwe contained nothing glamorous at all. It was sordid, dishonest, underhand, undemocratic and wrong. It should not be allowed to stand. President Bush is right to have made it clear that he will not recognise the result, and we should do the same. For all the Foreign Secretary's fine words, I am disappointed that nothing in what he said suggested that that would be the case.
	We must avoid the temptation of a emotional reaction. We need to look dispassionately at the evidence of what has happened and to be able to demonstrate that the election was not only flawed, but rigged well in advance of polling and neither free nor fair. It has not been free for months. The long run-up to the elections has been marked by violence, intimidation and the use of terror as a political weapon. The House should not forget that in the 12 months to January this year we had already seen 48 political murders, 329 abductions and 2,245 cases of torture, and there have been many more since. We have seen the media gagged, and reputable international broadcasters expelled and labelled as terrorists. All those are the attributes of fascist regimes through history.
	Nor was the election fair. From the outset the process has been corrupted, as the Foreign Secretary set out in detail today and as the reports from the Commonwealth and SADC so clearly and graphically confirm. It is worth remembering that in March last year SADC set out 11 election recommendations that were subsequently endorsed by all SADC members, including Zimbabwe. Not one of the 11 recommendations has been adhered to.
	I shall remind the House of some of those recommendations and what happened. They included impartial international and regional election observers at the earliest possible stage—that did not happen; equal access to the media for opposition parties—that was not allowed; impartial policing of the ballot—laughable; presidential candidates to be provided with free and adequate security during the election process—laughable; and unimpeded freedom to campaign and freedom to vote throughout the country—laughable.
	The result sets several serious tests in different areas. It is a test for southern Africa of whether the region genuinely adheres to the principles of democracy set out in the Harare declaration. It is a test for the Commonwealth of whether the principles on which it is founded mean anything at all. It is also a test for the Prime Minister, who has spoken about
	"healing the scar . . . that is Africa"
	to show whether he can, even belatedly, give the leadership to mend what is not just a scar but an open and bleeding wound on the body of that great continent.
	I do not believe that what the Foreign Secretary has said today goes nearly far enough—it sounded like just more of what we have heard before. Once again, it is hope against experience. Why does not the Foreign Secretary today make it clear that the Government do not recognise the result or the legitimacy of the Zimbabwean Government and take steps accordingly?

Denis MacShane: He did.

Michael Ancram: He did not.
	Will the Foreign Secretary urgently consult his European Union counterparts in Barcelona this evening to see whether the targets of the sanctions can be extended in the way that the MDC has called for today? Will he seek the maximum degree of non-recognition of this result and of the Government of Zimbabwe throughout the international community, including suspension from the Commonwealth? Will he and the Prime Minister, together with the United States, take a lead in building an international coalition, including Europe and responsible members of the Commonwealth, to bring real and determined pressure to bear on Zimbabwe for new presidential elections to be held? Mr. Mugabe has got away with this election because the international community in general, and our Government in particular, did not show him months ago that we meant business when we called for free and fair elections. Like all tyrants, Mugabe has fed on the belief that brave statements from this Government and others were all words and would not be backed up by action. To our shame, for many months, he was correct in that belief.
	The time for mere words is now over. There must be no more quiet diplomacy, no more hand wringing and no more supine inaction. They have all failed, and they have failed the people of Zimbabwe in the process. For the sake of the people of Zimbabwe, and for the sake of democracy, the Government must recognise that the time has come to stop talking and to start doing.

Jack Straw: I understand fully the right hon. Gentleman's anger and frustration about what has happened because I share it, but much of his response amounted to tilting at windmills. He asks for us to take action in the Commonwealth. We have sought to do so. I have been in the lead in that regard, but the fact is that the Commonwealth is a free association of 54 countries. There was not a majority—and still less unanimity—in the Commonwealth for suspension before elections took place. I hope that there is now agreement inside the troika, because that would be an important mark of the Commonwealth's disapproval of what has happened.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks us to build an international consensus. With respect, that is exactly what we have been doing. He asks for action. That is exactly what has been secured inside the European Union.

Michael Ancram: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the result?

Jack Straw: I thought that I had made it palpably obvious that we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy. There is no difference between the position that we have taken and that taken by President Bush.
	As the right hon. Gentleman asked for action, I say to him gently that we were able to secure the required unanimous approval of the European Union to impose sanctions. As it happens, those sanctions are being imposed on a broader basis than those that the United States, with which we have been working closely, has introduced up to now. Had the right hon. Gentleman been holding my office, with his party's approach to the European Union, would that unanimity have been achieved?
	I regret the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. Neither Opposition spokesmen nor anyone else should move the blame for what has happened from where it must lie. It cannot be moved to the international community or to the House. The blame and responsibility must lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Robert Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Nothing would please them more than if they were let off the hook by the kind of ill-advised remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench.
	I hope that the House will send out its determination that it recognises where the responsibility lies but, equally, that it recognises our responsibility to continue relentlessly to do all that we can by deeds as well as words to ensure that Mugabe and ZANU-PF are accorded neither the international status nor the assistance and recognition that they seek. Instead, we shall strive for a democratic election in Zimbabwe and a democratic Government.

Menzies Campbell: I feel constrained to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) when the Prime Minister reported after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—that if ever there were occasions on which the House should speak with one voice, it is occasions such as this.
	The Foreign Secretary said that we should not be surprised by the result. We should not be surprised either by the conduct of the elections, as the behaviour of ZANU-PF during them was entirely consistent with the campaign of violence, abuse and intimidation that characterised its behaviour towards opponents in the period running up to them. The sad and unpalatable truth is that, for all its optimism, it would have taken little short of a miracle for the Movement for Democratic Change to have won the election.
	In light of the Commonwealth observers group's trenchant and unequivocal condemnation, would not it be inconceivable for the troika to reach any conclusion other than that suspension was a necessary and inevitable response from the Commonwealth? What hope would there be for the Commonwealth as an institution based on the rule of law and on respect for human rights if its response to these events was seen to be feeble?
	The Foreign Secretary is right to put his trust in concerted action, and to engage the European Union. This is an occasion on which we should acknowledge the helpful, even exemplary, support that the United States has shown in these matters, both in the Administration and in the Congress.
	Finally, does the Foreign Secretary share my disappointment about the consequences of Mr. Mugabe's re-election? The right hon. Gentleman outlined the terrible domestic conditions in Zimbabwe, which will now continue, but Mr. Mugabe's behaviour has also placed an enormous burden on the whole of the region of southern Africa. Is not it a terrible tragedy that these events may set back, perhaps irretrievably, the renaissance for Africa in which so much hope has been invested?

Jack Straw: May I commend the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and the tone in which they were offered? I agree that this debate should not be an occasion for partisanship in the House. There needs to be unanimity. After all, an important element here is that hon. Members are democratically and freely elected. Some of us have lost quite a few elections, even in the free and fair conditions that apply in this country. I spent 18 years in opposition, so I know about losing elections freely. That is bad enough, but to have an election stolen from one is much worse.

Paul Keetch: Freedom!

Denis MacShane: Just like Israel.

Jack Straw: I will not be drawn down that route.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked whether it would be inconceivable, in the light of the trenchant comments made in the Commonwealth observers' initial report, for the troika not to recommend suspension. I understand the strength of that view. He and the House know very well that, even on the evidence available in December, the Government thought that the Commonwealth ought to suspend Zimbabwe's membership. Given that the evidence has mounted since then, and given what Commonwealth observers have concluded, we think that still more today.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked about the future of the Commonwealth. I happen to believe that it is a strong organisation. Those of us who have attended some of the Commonwealth celebrations and seen, for example, the breadth of the non- governmental organisations involved will appreciate the huge contribution that the Commonwealth makes to civic society—and not just to inter-governmental relations—in its 54 member countries. Plainly, however, the Commonwealth's reputation could not but be damaged if no action were taken in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report.
	I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife for mentioning the exemplary support that the United States has shown. I would add, parenthetically, that, of course, the US has interests in Zimbabwe, but that the United Kingdom's interests there are far greater. I hope that those who say that the US worries only about its own interests, is isolationist and does not consult its international colleagues, will recognise that it has been highly consultative over Zimbabwe, as in so many other matters, and that it has taken action because of its responsibility as a member of the international community rather than for its own, particular reasons.
	As to the overall consequences of the election on the region, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asks whether it will set back irretrievably the chances of a renaissance in Africa. I do not believe so; I do not believe that we should accord Mugabe that power. This is a setback, and it will be even more of a setback if other leaders in southern Africa do not recognise the huge task that they now face to rebuild confidence not only in other southern African countries but in Zimbabwe itself.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is no time for narrow party points—the situation is far too serious. One of the most important things that he has told the House is that both SADC and the Commonwealth observers have roundly condemned the election as a total fraud. That is an important message because it gives the lie to those in the Mugabe camp who try to argue that this is a north-versus-south argument, the rich against the poor in Africa. We must establish both in this country and internationally that it is the ordinary people of Zimbabwe who have been robbed in this election. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that he will take that message to Barcelona. The role of the European Union is not to lead world opinion but to work with our friends in democratic states throughout Africa and elsewhere who recognise that this election is a fraud against democratic principles.
	One of the most certain consequences of the election is that the situation in Zimbabwe will continue to deteriorate. It is implausible to say that it will get better or stabilise. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will continue to support people such as Mr. Tsvangirai in the MDC and those who are pushing for democratic change? When one party has stolen an election, it is legitimate to suspend the normal terms and conditions of impartiality. We should support those in Zimbabwe who will fight for democracy.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He is right to say that the ordinary people of Zimbabwe have been robbed by this election result. One of the many untruths that Mugabe was trying to peddle is that this is a black-versus-white issue. However, if one looks at those who have been the target of the ZANU-PF police state machine, one finds that they are overwhelmingly the blacks of Zimbabwe, particularly the urban blacks and those in rural areas who have dared to express opposition. All the reports overwhelmingly show that to be the case. As far as I know, the SADC parliamentary forum is almost exclusively black—it has condoned the outcome of the elections—and, like the Commonwealth itself, the Commonwealth observers group is multi-racial and is led by a Nigerian.
	We will continue to do all that we can to support everybody in Zimbabwe who has at their heart the universal principles of democracy and of free and fair elections.

Nicholas Soames: The Foreign Secretary is aware, because I have told him, that when my father was the last governor of southern Rhodesia, I visited with him the polling stations on the first day of those remarkable elections, which were not perfect, when tens of thousands of people queued, as they have done in the past few days, to express for the first time their democratic wish. So much bright hope was vested for the future, only for it to be smashed to pieces in the last few days. The message that should go from this House to the people of Zimbabwe is that we feel for them in their great difficulty and in the grief that most of them will be suffering.
	May I urge the Foreign Secretary to lobby vigorously, if he is entitled to do so, among the 54 members of the Commonwealth to ensure that the troika does its duty and that the spirit of those reports, which will have been gained with considerable difficulty, is honoured in the only proper decision that the troika could make?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for their tone. I recall our conversation, in which he recounted with great poignancy his experiences of being alongside his father when an entirely peaceful handover of power took place. Great hope was vested in Mugabe and many others, and there was a free and fair election, which led to an outcome that was not anticipated. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that bright hope has been smashed to pieces.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me whether we shall lobby vigorously within the Commonwealth. Yes, we will. Given all the pressures on the observers, including subtle intimidation—European Union observers were refused admission—and some violence, it is remarkable that they have come out with such strident conclusions. Given those pressures, their conclusions should be treated with greater seriousness.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend made a sad statement, but one that came as no surprise to any of us who have watched events in Zimbabwe over recent years. There was an erosion of democracy in the elections and attacks on the freedom of the press and the judiciary.
	Should we not be making it clear to people in Zimbabwe, especially to ZANU-PF members and supporters, that the solution lies in their hands? It is for them to wake up before it is too late and before they have destroyed democracy and freedom in their country. They need to change direction now.

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to imply that there has been extraordinary short-sightedness, even for people in ZANU-PF. They will not secure a bright future for their country nor an economic recovery. Instead, by stealing the election, they will make the situation in Zimbabwe worse.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's robust words in condemning the farce of an election in Zimbabwe. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the statement from the SADC parliamentary forum election observation mission, which indicated that even members of the mission were part of the targeted violence in the run-up to the elections?
	I know that the right hon. Gentleman is off to Barcelona, and that he will be discussing Zimbabwe in depth with our colleagues in the European Union. Will he tell the House whether he plans to contact the Heads of Government in the SADC region and to support the statement from the head of the SADC observer mission, who is calling for dialogue between the leaders of the SADC Governments and Mugabe, to try to arrive at some reconciliation or a new process that could lead to democracy in Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: I have seen the SADC conclusions, and I am placing copies of them and those of the Commonwealth observers in the Library. We shall be in touch with relevant Heads of Government within the SADC region. One of the reasons why the SADC conclusions are so powerful is that they come not from Government representatives but from parliamentary representatives.

David Winnick: In totally condemning Mugabe's tyranny, are not Labour Members being entirely consistent? In the 1960s, we used every opportunity to denounce the tyranny of Smith's illegal regime. I do not remember too many protests from Conservative Members in those days.
	Has not the time come, given all that has happened this week, for the majority in the Commonwealth to come off the fence, recognise their democratic responsibilities and suspend Zimbabwe for as long as Mugabe is in power?

Jack Straw: In the spirit of bipartisanship, I shall gently pass over my hon. Friend's earlier remarks.
	It is a time for decision by those in the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Coolum, Australia last week, decided to set up the troika. They have already had the published report. There will be a further, more detailed report. The view of the House is clear from the observations that Members on both sides have made and would make if they were members of the troika.

Andrew MacKay: Clearly, it is essential that the House remains united today in its condemnation of this rigged election and the abuse of human rights by Mugabe and his regime. Is the Foreign Secretary comfortable with the role that has been played by President Mbeki, especially bearing in mind this morning's press reports that South African observers have said that the election was free and fair, when clearly it was not? Will he again underline how much damage will be done to South Africa if President Mbeki makes the wrong decision at the troika, and also underline today's run on the rand, which shows that there will be terrific disinvestment in South Africa if it is seen to support the regime in Harare?

Jack Straw: We all recognise that President Mbeki of South Africa bears a very heavy burden of responsibility not only for the economy and prosperity of his country, but, because of South Africa's size and importance, for the prosperity of the entire region and the reputation of Africa as a whole. I am sure that he will read with care the remarks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and many others.

Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the history of Africa and especially southern Africa, minority military-backed regimes have inevitably been removed in time? If we look to Zambia, South Africa and elsewhere, we see that the trade union movement has played an important role in that process. In our response to this rigged election, should not we endeavour to reinforce our support for the mass independent trade unions in Zimbabwe as part of the process of democratic change?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the many arguments against military regimes is that they are inherently unstable and short-lived and must be replaced by democracies. As to the trade union movement, it is not coincidental that Morgan Tsvangirai himself was a leader of that movement in Zimbabwe. On support for trade unions across Africa and indeed the world, yes, we agree that it is necessary. My hon. Friend may know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), has been doing a huge amount of work to ensure that we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office better support the work of the international trade union movement.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that not only this House, but the whole civilised democratic world must be united against what has happened in Zimbabwe in recent times? Does he agree that while Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF can claim a sordid victory, they certainly cannot claim any democratic legitimacy? Will he indicate to the House what action we can take to seek to protect Morgan Tsvangirai and members of the Movement for Democratic Change, the opponents of Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF? Will he also explain how we are going to help the poor people of that country, who were given a foretaste of what Mr. Mugabe would do way back in 1983-84, when he indulged in mass genocide of thousands of Matabele who opposed his Government?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman has played a consistent and commendable role in the matter of Zimbabwe—and, before that, of Southern Rhodesia—over many years, which I commend. He drew attention to the massacres that took place in Matabeleland in the mid-1980s. That was a shameful episode not only for Zimbabwe, but for the international community, including the United Kingdom, which failed to take action. That is another reason why the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) were so ill judged. One of the things that makes the election results risible—I gather that this is the case from this morning's newspapers—is that it is said that Mugabe got a good vote in Matabeleland, where he is hated for palpable reasons. He could have got a good vote there only by methods that are never recognised in democratic and free countries. We will do all that we can to help people who have been in the lead of democratic movements of all kinds in Zimbabwe. I commend the hon. Gentleman's remarks about helping the poor people of Zimbabwe. The message that must go out from the House is that in everything we do as well as everything we say, we are working for the people of Zimbabwe and against a palpably undemocratic and illegitimate Government.

Tony Cunningham: I wholeheartedly support the condemnation expressed by my right hon. Friend this morning. Although we have heard condemnation from the American Government and European leaders, we also desperately need condemnation of this rigged election from African leaders. Does he have any plans to discuss this rigged election not only with SADC leaders, but with other African leaders in general?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend will find that there has been a pretty high degree of condemnation. As I said, there has been condemnation by the Nigerian leader of the Commonwealth observers and by the parliamentary representatives who formed the SADC delegation. Earlier this year, the Ghanaian Foreign Minister condemned what had happened in Zimbabwe up to that point. It would be a huge error that would play into Mugabe's hands if we were to allow the myth to develop that Africa is supporting him while the rest of the world is not. Most of Africa is shamed by what Mugabe has done and is now, thankfully, saying so.

Angus Robertson: I fully associate both the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the Foreign Secretary's statement and fully endorse the efforts that he is undertaking. In addition, I endorse entirely what has been said about the necessity of strong action and reaction through the European Union. Does he share with me the concerns illustrated in papers previewing the Barcelona summit, which show that common foreign and security policy questions are 25th out of 25 in order of importance on the agenda? Will he make every effort in Barcelona to try to force the issue higher up the agenda? Will he also try to push for European Union colleagues to increase targeted measures against leading ZANU-PF members, and make every effort to secure a tougher sanctions regime that is aimed solely at the governing elite and not the ordinary people of Zimbabwe?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he expressed on behalf of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. He asked about Barcelona. The reason why common foreign and security policy appears low on the agenda is that the summit is principally about the economic reform agenda that was set in place two years ago at Lisbon. I assure him that that does not mean for a second that Zimbabwe is low on the overall agenda of the European Union, which has acted commendably and swiftly in all that it has done, from moving back in the autumn from article 8 to article 96 of the Cotonou agreement, through to its decisions on 18 February to impose the sanctions. We will consider whether we can take other targeted measures and toughen up the sanctions regime, but as he said, in everything we do, we will ensure that such measures are targeted at the illegitimate leadership of the Government and not the people of Zimbabwe.

Malcolm Savidge: This murderous tyrant is not only wreaking terrible damage in Zimbabwe, but seeking to provoke dangerous divisions in Africa and the Commonwealth. Will my right hon. Friend ignore the irresponsible, bellicose bluster of his shadow and continue to use careful diplomacy to try to encourage the neighbouring states to recognise that this is an issue not of race or colonialism, but of universal human rights and democracy?

Jack Straw: Yes.

John Wilkinson: Could there not be at least one benefit from this sad tragedy that has befallen Zimbabwe and its people, namely that we may lose for ever any residual illusions about the nature of ZANU-PF and its Marxist dictator leader, Mr. Mugabe, who has acted entirely predictably, and whose actions could to some degree perhaps have been forestalled? That having been said, will Her Majesty's Government concert with the highest intensity with the United States Government, who have a good track record in dealing with rogue states in an appropriate manner?

Jack Straw: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, leaving aside ZANU-PF's ideological baggage—it is not the only party in the world to have ideological baggage—as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who spoke so movingly about his experience witnessing his father's role as the last Governor-General of that country, said, for quite a long period ZANU-PF had some hope and expectation behind it. It is a huge pity that it has failed to meet that expectation. As to working with the United States, the answer is yes. We are, and will continue to be, in close touch with the United States Government.

Hugo Swire: May I press the Foreign Secretary on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that I did not feel received a suitable answer? Will he assure the House that when he speaks to his colleagues in Barcelona and elsewhere, they will discuss as a priority how they can guarantee the immediate and long-term safety of all those men and women in Zimbabwe who have had the courage to stand up to Mugabe and his thugs during the past few months?

Jack Straw: I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) if he feels that I did not deal with that point. The answer is yes, we shall raise the issue of Zimbabwe not only at Barcelona, notwithstanding the constraints on the agenda, but also in the Foreign Ministers Council and at the European Heads of Government summit on a wider range of issues that will take place in Seville later this year.

Norman Lamb: Particularly in the light of the inability of South Africa, and President Mbeki in particular, to show greater leadership in the region, what future does the Foreign Secretary see for NEPAD and what role in particular should the G8 play in pushing that forward in the light of the election result?

Jack Straw: NEPAD is about—[Interruption.] With great respect, it is not a laughing matter. If the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) does not know what the initials stand for, it shows a lack of information about a strategy for Africa, which I greatly regret.
	The new partnership for Africa's development initiative is designed to try to turn round Africa's economic prospects and to lift Africa out of poverty. Africa is a continent which, uniquely out of all the continents in the world, has a declining, not growing, economy, and that is why the new African partnership is so crucial. The people of Africa should not be punished by the misbehaviour of one man, Mugabe, nor of his party. It is my great hope that what has happened in Zimbabwe overnight does not undermine the prospects of NEPAD, and, because of the way in which Mugabe is helping to reduce still further the prosperity of Africa, the paradox is that it becomes all the more urgent.

Charles Hendry: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many hon. Members have constituents whose relatives have had farms seized in Zimbabwe or who have been threatened. Some of them have been killed and some of their innocent farm workers have been killed or brutally beaten. He will also be aware that those people are more worried than ever that Mugabe's thugs will believe that they can run rampant because they are unchallengeable and above the law. Does he therefore accept that this is no longer the time for lengthy discussion but for urgent action, as each passing day brings additional threats to people's livelihoods and safety? Will he therefore tell us the time scale for the troika to make its recommendations and for the Commonwealth to react to them? Will he ensure that the views of the House are relayed in terms not just of the unanimity of action that we believe needs to be taken, but also of its urgency?

Jack Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, our concern, like that of the House, is for everybody in Zimbabwe, regardless of the colour of their skin, citizenship or nationality. It speaks volumes for that concern that no one this afternoon has directly raised the issue of all the British citizens who are there, but I should make use of the opportunity of the hon. Gentleman's question to say that we have particular responsibilities to them and we shall ensure that those are carried out. I completely understand the anxieties of the white community in Zimbabwe, but in recent months the main violence has overwhelmingly been against the black community there. One should not have to make that point, but we hope that everybody, whatever their racial origins, colour or citizenship, if they are resident in Zimbabwe, can, notwithstanding the tragedy, still look forward to a future in Zimbabwe.
	As to the time scale for the troika, my understanding is that it is intended that the troika should meet next week, and as soon as I have more detailed information I shall make it available to the House.

Hugh Robertson: The Foreign Secretary is correct to say that the consequences of Mugabe's victory will not be confined to Zimbabwe but affect surrounding countries. What plans are the Government putting in place to deal with the poverty and famine that flow directly from Mugabe's policies?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has already put in place humanitarian assistance programmes in Zimbabwe. It is extraordinary that here is a country that was exporting large quantities of agricultural produce across southern Africa which now has people starving, not because of any natural disaster but because of the man-made, Mugabe-made, disaster, by which he has taken power illegitimately and, in the course of his misuse of power, has managed to collapse the Zimbabwe economy and much of the economy of the rest of southern Africa. That is his appalling legacy. I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I say that, within the resources available to her, she will continue to do all that she can to provide humanitarian aid across southern Africa where it is needed and assistance in fighting HIV/AIDS.

Andrew Turner: My e-mail inbox, like that of many of my hon. Friends, has been heavy with e-mails from constituents and direct from Zimbabwe, reflecting the concern about all communities in that country. But are we not all guilty of having looked for many years through rose-tinted spectacles at dictatorships in Africa? Were not the Government whom I supported responsible for turning their face away from the intimidation in Matabeleland in the early 1980s? Have we not all patronised the Africans as somehow being undeserving of the same quality of democracy as we would expect for our people? Should we not admit those things? Will the Foreign Secretary press for a ban on international travel for any of the adherents of the Mugabe dictatorship and ensure that it is made clear that any aid that goes to Zimbabwe—aid will be greatly needed in future weeks and months—comes from those democracies that Mugabe so much reviles?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks are very wise and we all have lessons to learn here. He is particularly wise to say that it is and has been patronising of the international community somehow to imply that other standards should operate in Africa. A universal principle is at stake and, in so far as it needs spelling out, the great paradox or irony of the situation is that it was spelled out for the Commonwealth at the Harare meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1991 chaired by none other than Robert Mugabe.
	On the ban on travel, the European Union and United States sanctions impose travel bans on 20 or so leading members of ZANU-PF. We are of course open to representations and shall consider whether those bans should be extended.
	On aid, we shall make it clear that aid comes from the democracies that Mugabe so despises. We need democracy because it applies a universal principle of freedom; one of the other truths about democracies is that they are almost always much more prosperous than dictatorships.

Business of the House

Robin Cook: The business of the House up to the Easter recess will be as follows:
	Monday 18 March—Debate on hunting.
	Tuesday 19 March—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. Until seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in Education and Skills Training" followed by a debate entitled "The Chinook Helicopter Crash".
	Wednesday 20 March—Progress on remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
	Thursday 21 March—There will be a debate on education of 14 to 19 year-olds on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 22 March—The House will not be sitting.
	Monday 25 March—Second Reading of the State Pension Credit Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 26 March—Hon. Members will wish to know that it is proposed that the House will meet from 11.30 am until 7 pm. The business of the day will be a motion to approve the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the registration of interest by Members who have not taken their seat.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill.
	Motion on the Easter Recess Adjournment.
	The House will wish to know that on Monday 18 March 2002, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to aircraft noise. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
	[Monday 18 March 2002:
	European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 15014/01 and 5119/02; Aircraft Noise. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 152-xx (2001-02).]

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement.
	On Friday 8 March the Adjournment debate in this Chamber was replied to not by the Minister responsible for the subject of the debate, but by a Government Whip. I raised the matter at the time, as you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you were in the Chair. Was that a one-off occurrence or is it to be routine that Ministers will not be here to listen and respond to debates on their ministerial responsibilities, but leave it to Government Whips? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who initiated the debate, said, touchingly naively, that he wanted the Government Whip
	"to assure me that he"—
	the Whip—
	"will ensure that a Minister with specific responsibility for this matter will be made aware of my concerns, and will respond to the calls that I have made."—[Official Report, 8 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 614.]
	So the hon. Gentleman whose debate it was had to make a heart-felt plea that its subject matter would be passed on to the absent Minister, who by that time, like Elvis, had left the building.
	That raises an issue of huge importance. Will the Leader of the House assure me, very firmly, that that occurrence will not be repeated and that the Government have not walked away from their responsibilities to such an extent that Ministers are no longer prepared to come to the House to respond to debates and be held to account?
	The Leader of the House will be aware of the dreadful and appalling case of corruption that recently arose in Doncaster, where several Labour councillors were convicted of fraud. He should also be aware—if not, I am about to make him so—that yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister said, in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), that
	"a Conservative councillor was before the court at the same time."—[Official Report, 13 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 873.]
	The Deputy Prime Minister was obviously trying to implicate or smear a Conservative councillor to put him in the same disgusting category as the large number of Labour councillors who were convicted.
	Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Conservative councillor was acquitted of all charges, but the Labour councillors were convicted? I will understand if he is reticent about the issue. It must be difficult for Labour leaders who were involved with Ecclestone, Hinduja, Mittal and all the others to condemn their colleagues in local government. However, as the right hon. Gentleman was involved in none of those matters, I am sure that he will have no such inhibitions.
	Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to the chaotic and increasingly disordered way in which statements are made in the House? Texts of statements are given to official Opposition spokesmen much later than has traditionally been the case. Whether that is cock-up or conspiracy, I can only guess. Will he find some way of giving the House more notice of statements? Today offers a good example. A very important statement such as that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well have been made after the close of the markets yesterday evening. Attendance in the House is inevitably thin today because we do not have any votes. Consequently, many right hon. and hon. Members who have a legitimate interest in the matter and would have been here had they known that the statement was to be made are, regrettably, absent. Will the Leader of the House get a grip on his colleagues? In most cases it is known at least 48 hours in advance when statements are due to be made, so will Ministers please give the House proper notice so that we can deal with them properly?
	Lord Browne, who was one of the Prime Minister's much-vaunted people's peers, earned—I am happy for him—several million pounds over the past year. I know that hairdressers were disqualified from being people's peers, but can the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any limit on the earnings that those peers can enjoy?

Robin Cook: I did not anticipate that the Conservative party would propose a reverse means test for Members of the second Chamber, but we look forward to that provision featuring in its submission on the reform of that Chamber. I am happy to say that I have no responsibility whatsoever for pay awards made to Sir John Browne. [Hon. Members: "Lord Browne."] I certainly have a responsibility not to demote him; I am happy to call him Lord Browne. Having disclaimed the criticism of his pay award, I think that honour is satisfied between us.
	I shall deal with the matters for which I have responsibility. On last Friday's Adjournment debate, I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, unlike Elvis, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), is alive and kicking. Indeed, he has shown no difficulty whatsoever about coming before the House. He has responded to 34 Adjournment debates since the last general election—by far the most achieved in a single Session by any Minister in the Government, or, I think, any in the previous Government. That is overwhelmingly because of the innovation of debates in Westminster Hall—which I welcome and support, unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
	I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for many years, including the period when he led the Labour group on Edinburgh district council. His colleagues there and in the House would be surprised by his being described as "touchingly naive". I take it that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to flatter my hon. Friend; I warn him that it will not work. Since the Adjournment debate, the Whip who replied to the debate has fully discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—

Eric Forth: Impressive.

Robin Cook: Indeed; I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the ministerial level of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions at which the matter was raised. The Whip also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to draw his attention to those matters that fell within the remit of the Home Office.
	I can assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that such practice will not be routine. In Westminster Hall, the Government rightly provided a facility that has greatly increased hon. Members' opportunities to raise matters concerning their constituencies. In those circumstances, it is not improper for the Government and the House to look at ways in which we can ensure that Adjournment debates are fully serviced and replied to, without putting on Ministers a burden that interferes with other matters with which they have to deal, such as responding to hon. Members' correspondence. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does respond to correspondence.
	On the Doncaster councillors, it is important for both parties to ensure that we apply the highest standards of propriety within our parties and make sure that legal requirements are fully observed. It would therefore greatly assist the House if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst could tell us that he will use his influence with Lady Porter to encourage her to return to Britain to face the court proceedings against her relating to when she was leader of a Conservative council.
	Finally, on the issue of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have listened week after week to the right hon. Gentleman complaining that we do not have enough statements. Whenever we produce a statement, a complaint is made about it, and that happened again today. Let me remind him that this is the first time that a statement has been made to the House to announce the outcome of a Competition Commission—previously the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—inquiry. In their entire 18 years in office, a Conservative Minister never once came to the House to make a statement on the outcome of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, and I genuinely believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deserves to be congratulated on coming to the House, not criticised for it.

Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend is a master of procedure, so may I ask him for advice? On Monday, we shall vote on a series of motions on hunting with dogs. If the motion to ban hunting with dogs is carried by the Commons, as I believe it will be, is there any way in which we in this Chamber—or perhaps Labour Members in another forum—can express a view on whether the Hunting Bill, which was carried by the Commons in the last Session, can be brought back and dealt with in this Session before November as an alternative to a new Bill being introduced and the business of hunting with dogs hanging round our necks for the next two and a half years?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend characteristically flatters me; I would describe myself only as a humble student of procedure, and I am constantly surprised at how much more there is to learn.
	I remind my hon. Friend that the Minister for Rural Affairs has given a commitment that before we rise for the Easter recess he will respond to Monday's votes and outline how the Government intend to proceed in the light of them. I suggest that my hon. Friend save his question until that opportunity, which I understand may come next week.

Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give some thought as to how best we can deal with the important issue of public disengagement with Parliament and politics? I think that he will accept that it is not just a matter of scepticism and cynicism about corruption, to which early-day motion 1003 relates, and to which reference has already been made.
	[That this House condemns the behaviour of the former Doncaster councillor jailed on 12th March for accepting a bribe to change planning rules; congratulates former Doncaster councillor Ron Rose and the Yorkshire Post for their persistence in bringing the worst local government corruption case since the 1970s to light; congratulates South Yorkshire Police on its successful Operation Danum which has brought 21 councillors to justice; regrets the culture of institutionalised corruption which was allowed to develop unchecked by the national Labour Party; calls on the Government to introduce proposals for proportional representation to end one-party states in local government; and further calls on all parties to promote the highest standards of probity and public service in local government.]
	Rather, there are longer-term concerns.
	Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the interesting article in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph by Sir John Nott, a distinguished former Cornish Member of the House and a former Minister of the Crown? The headline is "Thatcher obsessed with spin", which shows that some things are never new. Has he looked at the report which the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), apparently launched yesterday on democracy, citizenship and political engagement? Does he accept that this is a matter of concern not just to the Government but to all parties in the House? What steps can be taken in the near future to identify, one would hope, the causes for the trend of cynicism and scepticism about the democratic parliamentary process?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is not just a matter of low turnout at elections, which is perhaps a symptom of the disease, but that there are basic diseases behind that symptom? Low turnout is bad enough on average, but it is even worse in cases of safe seats when electors feel that they have no impact on the eventual result. This issue should concern every single Member of both Houses of Parliament, and should not simply be left to a Labour party document and the Labour party chairman.

Robin Cook: I have not yet read the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall certainly savour it. I always enjoy reading articles by Margaret Thatcher's former Ministers criticising her; it is difficult to keep up with the scale of those articles.
	The issue of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman presents a profound challenge for all of us. This is not a party political point; it should exercise hon. Members in all corners of the House. There is clear evidence of a decline in esteem for this place. That is why it is so important that we modernise this place so that we appear relevant and part of the same century as our electors. However, there are much wider and deeper problems of disengagement from the democratic process, particularly among young people. That troubles me because if young people continue to be disengaged we shall face declining turnouts as that cohort of the population grows older. This is a matter to which we should all address our minds.
	I am particularly concerned that, too often, publicity about the House centres on the high point of party political contests and the mud wrestling that goes with it. We are not portrayed often enough as a place of serious business carrying out a serious job of work, and until we achieve that image of ourselves, we shall continue to have a problem in gaining respect.

Alice Mahon: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 927?
	[That this House is aware of the deep unease among honourable Members on all sides of the House at the prospect that Her Majesty's Government might support United States military action against Iraq; agrees with Kofi Annan that a further military attack on Iraq would be unwise at this time; believes that such a course of action would disrupt support for the anti-terrorism coalition among the Arab states; and instead urges the Prime Minister to use Britain's influence with Iraq to gain agreement that United Nations weapons inspections will resume.]
	It expresses the deep concern of 107 hon. Members at the United States proposals to take military action against Iraq.
	So far, the Government have failed miserably to make a case for supporting the unilateral action proposed by President Bush. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the Prime Minister will not announce support for that action, either in this country or on a ranch in Texas, before the House has had time fully to debate the issues based on facts, not belief? May we have a debate on that subject before the Easter recess?

Robin Cook: I cannot promise a debate on that issue before the recess, as I have just announced business for every day before the recess. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not appear entirely persuaded of that, he might like to consider pulling the Opposition day to make room for such a debate.

Eric Forth: Yes.

Robin Cook: There we are—my hon. Friend has struck a colleague in the shape of the right hon. Gentleman.
	If such action were to proceed, of course it should be debated in the House. In fairness to the Government, we demonstrated a willingness to listen to the House and gave the House an opportunity to debate the issues before and during the military action in Afghanistan, when we had five full debates on the threat of international terrorism. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that, should there be any proposal for action, the matter would of course have to be debated in the House. However, I remind her that, as the Prime Minister keeps saying, no decision has been taken and, as I said last Thursday, no decision may ever be taken.

Brian Mawhinney: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, will he reflect for a moment on what his reaction would have been when he was a leading light on the Opposition Benches had he been told that the then hon. Member for Peterborough, as a Under-Secretary or a Minister, was too busy—or too important—to respond to a debate in the Chamber? The right hon. Gentleman said that that will not be a routine occurrence. May I tempt him to go a little further and say that it will not happen again?

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman is always tempting, but on this occasion I find it possible to resist. I welcome the fact that there are now more opportunities than there were in his time for hon. Members to vent constituency issues. That is why Westminster Hall was created, and it is fulfilling that role adequately and properly. It is right that, in response to that additional opportunity for Members, we should consider the acceptable convention in respect to replying to debates, particularly in the case of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, who has now responded to 34 Adjournment debates.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the apocryphal saying, the first will be last and the last will be first. I am normally last when it comes to oral Question Time, with the exception of two weeks ago when fortunately I was drawn first. That exceptional opportunity for me was quickly reversed when I discovered that my oral parliamentary question had been referred to another Department. I would not have objected to that one jot had not the Department—the Cabinet Office—answered a written parliamentary question on exactly the same subject only the week before. Seven other people had their questions transferred from the Cabinet Office to a range of other Departments that day, and I suspect I join them in feeling extremely miffed. Will my right hon. Friend bring his influence to bear on the various Ministers heading up our Departments, and tell them that it would be useful for Members seeking to question them about responsibilities if we knew precisely what they did? It would appear that certain activities are the responsibility of people in the Cabinet Office one day and of someone else the next day. That also applies to their colleagues at the Table Office.

Hon. Members: Send her a written answer!

Robin Cook: I think I can handle this one myself, thank you very much.
	If my hon. Friend advises me next time she is drawn first, I shall certainly intervene with the relevant Department and make sure that her question is treated with the dignity and seriousness that it requires. To respond to the issue of substance, I am well aware of the deep frustration to Members of finding that their questions have been transferred. Indeed, if my hon. Friend consults the submission that I have made on behalf of the Government to the Procedure Committee's inquiry into questions, she will find that one of the points that I highlight is the need to try to reduce the number of times when questions are transferred. I hope that we can work with the Table Office to ensure that questions are tabled to the appropriate Department in the first place. In the meantime, I shall certainly draw her remarks to the attention of the Cabinet Office.

Simon Burns: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister from the Lord Chancellor's Department to come to the House next week to make a statement about the selection of city status? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of this morning's announcement, there is a growing view that the Government are engaged in a cynical political fix? Is he aware that, since 1997, six towns on the United Kingdom mainland have received city status, and that three of them did so six months before the last general election? Cynics might expect that those cities would all be Labour-held seats.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: They are.

Simon Burns: They are; the hon. Lady is right. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the Government have decided—rather cruelly, because the next election is not expected for at least three years—to fix it yet again today? The cities created on the UK mainland all have Labour MPs, and there is a growing fear that if a town that does not have a Labour MP, it will never become a city. That is demeaning to the honour of the process.

Robin Cook: Of the six towns that have been declared cities today, two are in Northern Ireland and therefore do not have Labour MPs. Of course, I understand that, given the very large number of towns that now have Labour representation in this place, it is increasingly difficult to find other towns that might meet the criteria. I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman for having missed out on this occasion, but I ask him to consider carefully, before making any further remarks, whether what he has just said would be supported by the Conservative parties of Preston, Newport and Exeter, and I congratulate those new cities on their success.

Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on the Government's energy review? It was a very good debate, but one and a half hours was not long enough, given the number of Members who wished to speak and the number of interests involved. Can we have a full debate on the matter in this Chamber? Energy is an important subject that affects every aspect of life in this country. While I am on my feet, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he responded to the opening points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the way in which he presented his points. These exchanges are now becoming the highlight of the week in the Chamber, given the inept performance of the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions.

Robin Cook: I am so glad that my hon. Friend got that last line in, as it explains the preceding passage.

Eric Forth: You wrote it.

Robin Cook: No, I could not have risen to such wit. It was entirely a product of my hon. Friend's contribution.
	On the question of energy, I am conscious of the wide interest in the matter, which has been raised on a number of occasions at business questions. I will certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend has said as we consider future business, depending on the availability of time.

Andrew MacKay: Last week, I put it to the Leader of the House that it would be quite wrong for the Government to announce an amnesty for terrorists on the run during our Easter recess. Uncharacteristically, he dodged the question, and did not state categorically that no such announcement would be made during the recess. It would be quite wrong to make such an announcement, and the feeling exists on both sides of the House that to give an amnesty to such people would wreck the Belfast agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can now give us an undertaking on that, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister said—in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) yesterday at Question Time—that there would be no such announcement during the recess.

Robin Cook: I understand the sensitivity of this issue. I am not aware of what plans there may be for any statement—or, indeed, whether a statement is to be made—but I shall certainly convey the right hon. Gentleman's points to the Northern Ireland Office.

John Smith: I welcome the Government's decision to offer a million euros towards the World Health Organisation's research into the relationship between deep-vein thrombosis and air travel. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the news today that that research programme is in disarray because of a massive funding shortage and the failure of leading nations such as Australia and America to support it? In the light of that, will he bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health as soon as possible, and reconsider the ability of this Government to carry out their own inquiry into the connection between deep-vein thrombosis and air travel, to stop any more British citizens dying unnecessarily?

Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the indefatigable way in which he has pursued this issue, and raised it on many occasions at business questions. It is, indeed, an issue of great gravity, and one that I have personally confronted lately through the experience of one of my European colleagues. I will pass on his observations to the Department of Health, but we need to recognise that, in terms of the statistical incidence of deep-vein thrombosis, the matter needs to be looked at on a global, rather than a purely national, basis. That is why a better way forward may be at international rather than domestic level. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, and I shall ensure that it is conveyed to the Minister.

John Barrett: May I add my weight to the call by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for a full debate in the Chamber in Government time following the publication of the energy review, particularly in relation to the infrastructure decisions that will have to be made to further the development of alternative energy generation?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his view. I remind the House that, at the moment, we have a report from the performance and innovation unit on energy, but we have yet to see the Government's considered response to it. A number of hon. Members have made the case for an extended debate on energy, however, and I am reflecting on that.

Sandra Osborne: My constituency has also lost out on its bid for city status, so I can assure the House that it is not only Conservative Members who have been disappointed. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate soon on the future of National Air Traffic Services, given its recent financial difficulties and the continuing delay over the new Scottish centre in my constituency?

Robin Cook: On that last point, my hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has made financial arrangements to ensure that the service can continue, and we shall obviously follow this matter with great care.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that there is no party political bias in the allocation of city status. I think that Chelmsford has left—this is becoming like a Shakespeare history play—so I shall omit any reference to that place. I encourage my hon. Friend to try again for that status, and I wish her well when she does so. I want to make a correction to my earlier list. I am told that Exeter has been given not city status, but lord mayoralty status. Stirling is, of course, the other town that has been given city status. I omitted it from the list in case Conservatives may have been upset by the observations of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), because it is so hard these days to find the Conservative party in Scotland.

Roger Gale: Given that the appointment of the chairman of the governors of the BBC has now become a new Labour sinecure, at least for the moment—and working on the naive assumption that the present appointee, Mr. Gavyn Davies, still has the confidence of the Government, in spite of his remarks at the Westminster media forum yesterday—will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in the main Chamber in Government time on the future funding, responsibilities and duties of the BBC, prior to the publication of the eagerly awaited communications Bill?

Robin Cook: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I know that he takes a close interest in these matters. I will happily add his request to the long list of such requests that is before me, but I remind him that we shall soon have an opportunity to examine the draft communications Bill. He and others will have plenty of chances to make their points about the future of BBC funding then.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Preston, which receives city status today? In this jubilee year, that is a great honour for 100,000 proud Prestonians—100,000 people displaying ethnic and religious diversity—and for a town with world-beating industries and a world-beating university that is now the eighth largest in the country. Preston has never been prouder than it is today.

Robin Cook: I am delighted that today's announcement pleased at least one Member, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Preston. Three criteria were required for success in the bid for city status; Preston fully met the third, which was a forward-looking attitude.

Gregory Barker: Many of my constituents find it weird that at a time when the national health service is in crisis and many of them wait 16 weeks for cancer treatment, when the police service is in turmoil, and when transport is in chaos and deteriorating, the Leader of the House has cleared the decks in order to focus on foxhunting.
	Leaving aside that perverse priority, however, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the House is to debate foxhunting on Monday, a day that had long been reserved for a reception given by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham palace to celebrate her golden jubilee, to which I believe all Members had been invited? Why could the debate not have taken place today, on Wednesday, or on any other day? Was this a cock-up? Was it typical of the incompetence that we have come to expect of this Government? Or was it contempt for Her Majesty the Queen—contempt that the Government routinely show for the Chamber?

Robin Cook: In my other role as President of the Council, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would show no contempt for Her Majesty. I have the greatest respect for the enormous job she does for the country, which I had an opportunity to admire at first hand when I was Foreign Secretary. As for the question of Monday's debate, a reception at the palace had indeed been organised. The decision not to proceed with it was made by the palace, but I understand that the palace intends to rearrange it on another date.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgently needed debate on channel tunnel security? As he will know, the storm-trooping activities of traffickers and illegal immigrants are causing havoc in Frethun, and bringing English Welsh and Scottish Railway freight services to a standstill. The destruction is threatening lives, jobs and trade.

Robin Cook: I am aware of the seriousness of the situation. We have repeatedly pressed the French authorities to ensure that there is adequate security at Sangatte and at the rail freight terminal. The measures we have taken on this side of the channel have been quite successful in reducing the number of illegal entries, which has fallen by a quarter in the past year, and the number of people arriving in Britain with improper paperwork, which has fallen by three quarters. Despite that progress, however, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the interruption to the service—which I use frequently myself—and we will continue to press the French authorities to produce an outcome that will allow the service to recommence.

Alistair Carmichael: In Westminster Hall on Tuesday, we had an excellent debate about the future of Consignia. Nine Back Benchers were able to contribute, although had time permitted—it was only a 90-minute debate—at least as many again could have done so. May I ask again whether a subject of such importance could be given some time on the Floor of the House, where it properly belongs? Does not fairness demand that Conservative Members, especially the large number with rural constituencies, should be allowed to place on record why they do not oppose measures that will have a dire impact on rural communities?

Robin Cook: It is not for me to speak to Conservative Members, but no doubt they heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will seek to rectify the omission before the hour is up. As for the question of our offering them, and the hon. Gentleman, the opportunity of a full debate on Consignia, I fully understand the strength of feeling in the House. Indeed, it was made clear in business questions immediately after the Postcomm statement. Fortunately for the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present. I am sure we will both reflect on what he said, and consider when it might be appropriate to bring the matter to the House.

Andrew Love: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read early-day motion 877, on debt and credit lending? It states
	[That this House is concerned that whilst consumer debt reaches record levels (£6.8 billion new debt in December according to the Bank of England), around three and a half million adults do not have access to any sort of bank account and seven million have no current account; expresses deep concern that over three million people are reliant on loans at high cost from licensed moneylenders; and urges the Government to act to tackle this injustice as part of a wider anti-debt strategy, within the context of the Government's antipoverty strategy.]
	The motion deals with financial exclusion. As it says, 3.5 million people have no bank account and 7 million have no current account. For many of those people, the only option is paying very high interest rates on loans. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so we can discuss how best to deal with the problem of extortionate lending within the wider framework of the Government's anti-poverty strategy?

Robin Cook: That is a subject of deep concern in many inner-city areas, and many of the most deprived parts of the country. I know from my experience in Scotland how high interest rates can be for vulnerable people. It is one of the great ironies that the poorest people often end up paying the highest rates.
	I commend my hon. Friend on his early-day motion, and particularly on his recognition of the role that can be played by the Post Office, which is universally available and will soon be able to provide a universal banking service. We will continue to seek imaginative ways of addressing the problem he has raised.

Anne McIntosh: I believe the right hon. Gentleman underestimates the damage caused to the whole United Kingdom by the closure of the channel tunnel to rail freight. Is he aware of the Government's target of 80 per cent. for freight travelling by rail, and is he aware that that target now cannot be met within the 10-year transport plan? Is he aware that half a million pounds is being lost each day by companies such as EWS and Potters of Melmerby in the Vale of York? Will he invite the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to make a statement here on precisely what the Government are doing? There is now no freight transport through the channel tunnel, which means that all freight is travelling by road. That is unacceptable.

Robin Cook: If I appeared not to grasp the gravity of the situation I am justly rebuked by the hon. Lady, but I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) that I fully understood the severity of the situation and its impact not just on Dover but on the country generally. I remind the hon. Lady that the issue at the heart of the problem is security at the freight terminal on the Calais side of the tunnel. We have no direct responsibility and no direct ability to intervene, but we will continue to press the French authorities which are responsible to provide adequate security so that the service can recommence.

Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the massive and disastrous rise in council tax throughout the country? It is just another Labour stealth tax, and one that hits the most vulnerable the hardest. Perhaps such a debate would allow us to explore the reasons why Labour-controlled Castle Point borough council has increased council tax on a band D house to more than £1,000, while the neighbouring Conservative-controlled Southend unitary authority charges £300 a year less.

Robin Cook: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on the massive rise in Government grants to local authorities. Since 1997 the amount has increased by 20 per cent., whereas during the previous five years under the Conservatives it rose by only 1 per cent. Given the enormous difference between the way in which the two Governments have funded local authorities, I think a period of silence from the hon. Gentleman would be welcome.

John Pugh: Can the Leader of the House look closely at the timetable set for the Government's proposals on regional government? The White Paper has not been published and only today we learn that the CBI in the north-west is withdrawing from participation in the north-west regional assembly because it believes that it is wasting its time. Is not the initiative in danger of floundering and should not the Government be giving some clear direction?

Robin Cook: The Government have given clear direction and our commitment to produce a White Paper will be fulfilled. I strongly urge all those involved in discussions about regional assemblies and regional government to remain committed to them so that their regions benefit when the White Paper spells out the way forward.

James Clappison: The implication of today's comments by the Leader of the House is that the Government will arrange for Whips to reply to Adjournment debates and that a limit could be set on the number of debates to which Ministers reply. Given that, can he explain how we can expect the House to be held in greater esteem when Ministers themselves do not hold it in sufficient esteem to come here to reply to debates? How can we expect members of the public to hold MPs in greater esteem when MPs have been deprived of the opportunity of putting their points across to Ministers in Adjournment debates? That is a significant and bad development. Can the Leader of the House put his hand on his heart and say that if our roles were reversed, he would accept without demur a Whip replying to an Adjournment debate which he had initiated?

Robin Cook: I would point out that the hon. Member who obtained and spoke in the debate, who is one of my colleagues, has made no complaint. The only complaints have come from the Conservatives. I did not suggest that the practice should be a general rule or generally applied; nor do I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, can be fairly accused of not taking his role in the House seriously. He has probably responded to more than double the number of debates than any other Minister bar one. Westminster Hall has allowed us to provide hon. Members with a much greater opportunity to raise issues. In those circumstances, we should recognise that occasionally—not as a general rule—it may be appropriate for a Whip, who is a member of the Government, to answer on behalf of a Minister.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Leader of the House tell the House which candidates for city status have been successful in Northern Ireland?
	In addition, according to the Order Paper, my ten-minute Bill—Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction) Bill—will be introduced on Tuesday 26 March. It is an important measure that will address the problem of damage caused by travellers who arrive in communities and cause damage to their neighbours' property, which is a cause for concern in Surrey. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that I will still have an opportunity to introduce that Bill even though the business for that day has changed slightly?

Robin Cook: I do not anticipate a problem with the ten-minute Bill proceeding on Tuesday 26 March. We will have Question Time as normal. I guarantee that the normal procedures for that day will stand, if only because it is Health Question Time and I will insist that we have it then.
	On Northern Ireland, the two towns that have been successful in applying for city status are Lisburn and Newry.

Evan Harris: May I remind the Leader of the House of his Government's manifesto commitment of 1997 to ban tobacco advertising? Smoking costs at least 120,000 lives, and a ban on advertising would save thousands of those. Is he aware that the private Member's Bill promoted by my colleague, Lord Clement-Jones, is likely to receive its Third Reading and clear the House of Lords tomorrow? If that is the case, and given that an almost identical Government Bill went through this House before running out of time in the Lords in the previous Parliament, will the Government give the Bill time? Have they any excuse not to give such an important measure Government time to finish its passage and provide the public health initiative that the country so desperately needs?

Robin Cook: I am well aware that the Bill has its final stage tomorrow. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are following the debate with close interest and will reflect on our position in the light of that.

Women and Equality

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted that we are having this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for providing us with the time, and to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who had the courtesy to tell me that unfortunately she cannot join us.
	International women's day was on Friday—hopefully, next year we will have this debate a little closer to it—and I had the enormous pleasure of attending the first major conference in my city of Leicester to bring together hundreds of women aged between 15 and 85 from different backgrounds and Leicester's diverse communities. We heard, as one always does at such events, stories of the extraordinary things that women are doing in their lives.
	Freda Hussain was appointed some years ago as the principal of one of Leicester's large community colleges. She was the first Asian woman principal in Leicester and possibly the first Asian principal. She said that on the day of the announcement of her appointment she was approached by a boy who said, "You don't look like a headmaster, miss", and by a group of girls, one of whom said, "Thank you,miss. Now we've got someone to look up to."
	We heard from Ann, an extraordinary woman in her 40s, who told us how she had gone through all her school years believing that she was thick because the teachers had told her so and had certainly made her feel like it. She got no qualifications and never had much of a job or, indeed, much of a life. Eventually, it was discovered that, like many people, she was dyslexic and it had not been diagnosed all those years ago when she was in school. She overcame that problem and gained access qualifications. She studied law and got a first-class degree. She then got a good job. Tragically, after all that, her employer could not give her the support that she needed to cope with her disability—she still cannot spell—in order to fulfil the demands of the job. I am afraid that she is unemployed again, although I have no doubt that with her determination she will soon be back in work.
	We heard from Karen Wildman, a Leicester woman, who started as a receptionist at one of Leicester's engineering companies and who rose to become the managing director of that firm. She is now an executive member of the board of the parent company. She has achieved extraordinary success in business, but some of the men in grey suits that she typically meets still take her for a secretary and talk to her male colleagues instead. I suspect that many of my hon. Friends—or should I say hon. sisters—have experienced that.
	We also heard from community leaders. Rita Patel, who founded Belgrave Behano, is now building a multi-million pound community centre in inner-city Leicester, and Vera Smith is an amazing, battling pensioner who fought to save a community centre in one of the outer-city impoverished council estates that I represent. I was delighted to join her the day after the conference to open a centre that had been refurbished as a result of funding provided by our neighbourhood renewal programme, but administered by resident leadership. Those were just a few of the women's voices that all of us hear in our constituencies and on whose behalf we have the privilege to speak in the House.
	Listening to women at last week's conference reminded me of the question posed by Sigmund Freud nearly 100 years ago. He asked, "What do women really want?" Apparently, it was a puzzle to the father of psychoanalysis, but it is no puzzle to hon. Members in the House today. We all want the chance to use our abilities, to find the strength and potential within us, as Ann did, whatever that potential is. We want to make a contribution at work and in the wider community; we want to earn a living and to enjoy a secure retirement. However, we also want the blessing of loving relationships with our friends and family and the chance to care for other people—our children, our parents as they grow older, and others who need us. We want to be able to balance home and work and the rest of our lives. We want our homes, streets and communities to be safe for ourselves and our children—safe from the scourge of domestic and public violence. We want good health and a good health service, good schools and all those other vital services.
	Of course women's aspirations are influenced by different cultural and religious traditions, social class and our parents' experience, but in essence they do not vary or change very much. What has changed is the condition of women's lives, and that has changed radically in recent decades.
	I grew up in the 1950s, at a time when there was a very clear division of labour between men and women. The man worked full-time while the woman, after marriage, stayed at home full-time to care for the children, and there were powerful social and legal sanctions against divorce and illegitimacy. Not everyone lived in that way; there has always been a significant number of working-class women, in particular, who earned a living for their family. However, it is fair to say that that traditional two-parent, one male breadwinner family model was society's ideal. It underpinned the way in which employers organised work and occupational pensions; it underpinned the way in which Government organised the national insurance and welfare systems and the rest of public policy.
	Just to describe that world of the 1950s is to see how far we have travelled since then. The huge social changes that we are living through were not imposed by any Government or dictated by some wicked feminist plot—they were created by women themselves, making different choices and demanding different opportunities in their lives.
	Those changes are continuing. Today I have published new survey figures showing a radical change in the levels of women's employment over the past decade. Over the past 10 years, men's employment rates have stayed relatively constant, but those of women, particularly mothers, have grown rapidly. We have seen a growth rate in employment of nearly 10 per cent. for all women between 1991 and 2001, compared with an increase of only 4 per cent. for men. Most strikingly, the employment rate of women whose youngest child is under five has grown by a third over the same period. That represents the biggest increase in the rate of women's employment in our country since the wartime period. Britain now has one of the highest rates of women's employment in the European Union and across the industrialised world.
	It is not the Government's job to tell women, or men, how to lead their life. Our job is to support and enable people to lead the fulfilling life that they want for themselves and their family. We can do that only if we recognise and understand these enormous changes. We must recognise that, despite the enormous increase in the wealth of our country, it is in many ways much tougher to bring up children today than it was when I and many other hon. Members were growing up. It is our job as a Government to support families—all families—in their double responsibility of earning a living and caring for children and other family members. That means that the Government have to support women, and men, in the choices that they want to make.
	We will have failed if women still have to go back to work too soon after having a baby because they cannot afford to stay at home any longer. We will have failed if women have to go on working long and inconvenient hours that they believe are damaging to their families and themselves because shorter working hours are simply not available.
	I should perhaps declare an interest, as I am the mother of two teenage children. Along with many hon. Members, I know just how difficult it is balancing commitments to our constituents, the House, our families and, in my case, in my role as a Minister. We have the great good fortune to do work that we love and have chosen, and to be well paid for it. How much harder is it for women such as the constituent to whom I was talking recently, who has to juggle, as she put it, not only work and family but her marriage? She is at home during the day caring for young children while her husband is at work. Three nights a week she works late shifts, getting no sleep at all, to bring in extra money while her husband is at home caring for the children.
	We will have failed if women are staying at home when they do not want to because they cannot find good quality, affordable child care or a job with the hours that they need or because, as older women who have brought up their children and are ready to embark on the next phase of their life, they come up against employer prejudice against older people. Perhaps I should declare another interest, as I am 53.
	When I say that "we" have to do these things, I do not simply mean the Government. I mean employers, in the public and private sectors. I welcome the fact, as I am sure the whole House does, that more and more businesses and public service organisations recognise that if they are to deliver the services that their clients and customers want and if they are to get and keep the good, skilled people they need, they have to pay attention to the needs and abilities of all the potential talent pool, not just half of it. The new figures that I have just given and the increase in women returning to work after having children in many ways represent an improvement, as women have told us, in the conditions available in the workplace.
	Unfortunately, not all employers have got there yet. I recently met Michelle Chew, a former police constable with more than 12 years' experience in specialist child protection work. She is also a lone mother who had, at the time the problem arose, two children under five. Not surprisingly, WPC Chew wanted hours that worked for her family as well as the police force. For some time, that is what she had. However, she was then faced with the demand that she move to full-time work on variable shifts that would have destroyed her child care arrangements. Her application to remain in her existing post or move to another part-time post with family-friendly shifts was twice turned down without any serious consideration. What was the result? The police force lost an immensely experienced and valuable officer in a specialist area where it is not always easy to recruit. It also lost the employment tribunal case that Michelle Chew brought against them, reinforcing the fact that there is a need for reform and change as well as investment in the police service and our other great public services.
	For years, the work-family balance has been a problem for women, while men have taken it for granted. Indeed, when a man in a top job in business or politics says that he wants to spend more time with his family, most people think that there must be something wrong with him. That, too, is changing; more and more men want to spend time with their family, striking a better balance between work and family. I welcome the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House who understand, from their experience, that changing approach among men.
	The Government are already doing a great deal to support women and families in making the choices that will suit them. We have introduced full-time rights for part-time workers, time off for people to deal with family emergencies, the right to parental leave while children are young, and higher maternity pay, which will come into effect from April next year. At the same time, we have introduced longer maternity leave, totalling up to one year off. Furthermore, for the first time ever, there is two weeks' paid paternity leave, to underline our recognition of the crucial role that fathers play in their children's lives.

Hugo Swire: indicated assent

Patricia Hewitt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the subject that he would like to declare, in which case I readily congratulate him.
	In the Employment Bill, we are also putting in place new legal standards for family-friendly working, to make it much easier for fathers and mothers with children under the age of six, or with older children who have disabilities, and to ensure that every workplace and manager has to consider how to reorganise work to suit their employees as well as their business.
	Much has been done to ensure that parents and families have the time that they need. Much has also been done to ensure that they have the money they need: the record increases in child benefit; the working families tax credit, which benefits one and a third million families; the national minimum wage, which has given a pay rise to about 1 million women and 500,000 men; the sure start maternity grant, which is also to be introduced in April 2003 for families on lower incomes and will deliver an increase in the maternity grant to £500, which is five times the level that we inherited in 1997; and, crucially, for older women the increases in pensions and the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. As I well remember from my first job with Age Concern, women are the majority of pensioners and, above all, the majority of pensioners living in poverty. They live longer, they have much less chance of a decent occupational pension and they have fewer savings on which to rely.
	We have provided not only time and money but the services that women and families need. I am particularly proud of our Government's achievements in child care, and pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who was responsible for child care issues in our first term, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who has taken over that responsibility. We have already created new child care places for more than 750,000 children. By March 2004, we will have places for about 1 million extra children.
	Much has been done, but because we listen to and represent women in our constituencies and our Government listen to women throughout the country, we all know how much more remains to be done, for instance, on the pay gap. When I was campaigning on equal pay and sex discrimination nearly 30 years ago, that gap was 37 per cent. Now, it is down to 18 per cent., but it is still far too high. The penalty paid by women in their lifetimes in forgone earnings is enormous. Research carried out by our women and equality unit found a staggering difference between the lifetime earnings of a woman with medium-level skills and two children and those of a man of similar experience. The gap in her earnings compared with his was about £380,000—a gender gap of £240,000 and a motherhood gap of a further £140,000.
	I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is doing so much to take forward the pioneering work of Baroness Castle, which will now be recognised again with the introduction shortly of the new Castle awards for employers who are making strides to close that pay gap. I certainly do not want my daughter to be campaigning on that issue in another 20 or 30 years.

Eleanor Laing: I thoroughly support all that the Secretary of State has just said about equal pay. Does she agree that that is a cross-party issue and that all parties in the House want women to be treated equally as regards pay? Indeed, a Conservative Government introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1983.

Patricia Hewitt: I was entirely with the hon. Lady until her last remark, as the Equal Pay Act was introduced by Baroness Castle in 1970 at the end of a Labour Government and was brought into effect in 1975 under the then Labour Government. However, I strongly welcome the hon. Lady's support for the action that we are taking to strengthen equal pay.
	One reason why we have already delivered a great deal and will go on to deliver a great deal more—there is much more to be done—is that we have done more than any previous Government to engage women in policy making. If public policy is to deliver for all our people, policy making must be done by women as well as men. This matter concerns not simply individual women or the fate of political parties; it directly concerns the health of our democracy and the legitimacy of our political institutions.
	In my constituency and throughout the country, I have been struck by the number of women who are engaged in neighbourhood and community leadership in, for example, tenants associations, community groups, the voluntary sector and faith organisations. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning said in an excellent article this morning, it is wrong to think that women are disengaged from politics. They are not.

Sandra Gidley: I note with interest what you said about women being at the heart of policy making—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must sit down when I am on my feet and she must use the right parliamentary language. She should address the Minister in the third person as the right hon. Lady.

Sandra Gidley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Will the right hon. Lady give us an update on the mainstreaming commitment that was announced early in the last Parliament?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question because it is important. We have combined the appointment of the two Ministers for women and the establishment of the women's unit, now the women and equality unit, with moves to ensure that in every Department real attention is paid to the different lives, circumstances and needs of women and men, and that is working well. Gender analysis is thus taken seriously in policy making in every Department. The fact that we have so many women Ministers helps to ensure that that actually happens.
	To return to the wider issue, women throughout the country are engaged locally in politics with a small "p"—in their own neighbourhoods and communities—but too many of them are disengaged from party politics, politics with a big "p", whether in the town hall or Whitehall. It is not surprising that that should be so. Too often when women look at their local council, or, in the past, at this House, or when they look at who is running big business, they see white men in charge, with some honourable exceptions. Women's representation as well as representation from our minority ethnic communities, for both men and women, is not a matter of political correctness; it is about the health of our democracy and the success of our economy.
	Our Government and the Labour party are doing their bit. I was proud, as were many of my hon. Friends who are present today, to be part of that historic intake in 1997 when more women Members were elected than ever before. I hope to be around long enough, but not too long, for that record to be broken and for us to be part of it.

Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we took a backward step at the last general election, especially as regards the representation of women from Scotland in this House?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like her and many of my hon. Friends, I am disappointed that slightly fewer women were elected to our Labour Benches in last year's election than in 1997, but I have no doubt that action will be taken to redress that imbalance over the years to come.

Linda Perham: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that not only the Labour party but other parties will take advantage of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which we introduced, to increase the number of women representatives of all parties in this place?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I was just about to refer to that measure—I think it should have been called the women's representation Act—which had all-party support. I am sure that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about how the Conservative party intends to use its provisions. The Act will enable any political party to take whatever positive action it considers appropriate to redress the imbalance that exists even now in the representation of women and men in this place.

Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that next week the Welsh Labour party conference in Llandudno will vote on a proposal for all-women shortlists for the Welsh Assembly elections? Does she agree that that is a direct result of the legislation introduced by the Government and a first step towards enacting it?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. I think that the Welsh Labour party is the first political party body to take advantage of the new law that we introduced.
	I am proud to be one of the seven women in the Cabinet—more than ever before in our history. I am proud to be part of a Government where one in three Ministers are women. We are doing significantly better than big business. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor–General has done pioneering work on that subject. When we consider the FTSE 100, we find that for each woman on a board there are 17 men—not so much "Sex in the City" as sexism in the City.

Joan Ryan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that before 1997 more Members were named John than were female. Currently, only one in eight Members of Parliament are women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only effective mechanisms to address that are quotas and the women's representation legislation?

Patricia Hewitt: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that there are not yet enough women in this place—nor are there enough women or men from our minority ethnic communities. The new law is a real step forward and will allow each political party to make its own decisions about the form of positive action that it wants to use—not to advance the career opportunities of women who are interested in politics but to ensure that our political institutions really reflect and represent all our communities and the whole of our country. That is essential if we are to deal with the problem of political disengagement at the party political or parliamentary level.
	We must all address the even larger problem of under-representation on local councils. There are honourable exceptions, but far too often our local councils are run or dominated by male councillors. The Government are already addressing that in the appropriate forums.

Hugo Swire: The right hon. Lady may be right about women's representation on councils. However, later in the debate, I hope to allude to the fact that the leader of the Conservative group on Devon county council is a lady—Christine Channon—who has been active in local politics for a long time. Furthermore, East Devon district council—one of the flagship councils of the land—is also controlled by the Conservatives and led by Sara Randall-Johnson who is also—as her name might suggest—a woman.

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to hear about both those women council leaders, whom I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. As I said, there are many outstanding exceptions to the general pattern that I was describing. Indeed, one of our many Ministers is my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, an excellent and experienced Minister, who was an extremely distinguished leader of Norwich city council for many, many years.
	There are many exceptions to the rule, but the general pattern remains that across local councils as a whole the representation of women is even lower—much lower—than it is in our Chamber.

Anne Begg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptions are so outstanding because in order for women to reach that level they must themselves be outstanding? There are many women languishing in society who are not quite as outstanding but who could easily contribute to the political process.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes a central point: if we do not effectively extend opportunities for women—whether in business, public service, government or a range of political and other public institutions—not only will individual women miss out, but society will miss out on the contribution of talent, skills and experience of women whose abilities are not being properly recognised.
	As we move towards next year's local council elections, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office and I will be leading a drive in the Labour party to ensure that there is an increase in the number of women, drawing especially on the women to whom I was referring—those who are so active in their local communities but who sometimes, unfortunately, see the local council as a hindrance rather than a help. We need to change that and one way of doing so is to get those women into the council making decisions.

Helen Jackson: I apologise to my right hon. Friend for my late arrival in the Chamber. I have come straight from the women's conference of the Trades Union Congress, where several hundred women gave details of their experience of their working environment and their working lives. We need that experience in this place. Few of those women have ever stood for Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they are the very people who should be enabled, through training and legislation, to have greater opportunities to serve on local councils and in this place?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that she was able to attend the TUC women's conference—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office did this morning. We shall do our part as a political party to recruit women with that extraordinary range of experience to a variety of more formal political activity—in councils and in this place.
	The Government are also playing their part. My hon. Friend and I—with my noble Friend Baroness Morgan, when she had ministerial responsibility for women and equality—initiated a programme of seminars and meetings throughout the country to encourage women from a range of backgrounds, regardless of political opinion, to put themselves forward for public appointments. That will allow us to tap into those women's experience and achieve our target of 50 per cent.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution that women working in science, engineering and technology have made to the quality of all our lives, and to reflect on the difficulties that those disciplines have in recruiting more women, who could only bring greater benefit to our economy if they were suitably used.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend has enormous expertise and is making an outstanding contribution on the issue. I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Daphne Jackson Trust, which, as she will know, has been pioneering support for women with scientific degrees and other qualifications who want to return to work. There is much more that we can and should do, which is why I recently asked Baroness Susan Greenfield to report to me on precisely how we can get more women into science—both young women and those returning to work. That again underlines the point that we will never overcome our skills shortages if business and science recruit from only half the population.

Mark Francois: A large number of cabinet portfolio holders on Essex county council are women: Iris Pummell runs the schools; Elizabeth Hart runs lifelong learning and early years; Tracey Chapman runs environment; and Mavis Webster is deputy for social services. Those are all women who have achieved that prominence entirely on their own merit. Essex county council is Conservative-controlled and women are doing very well on it. I cannot finish without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who won a seat from the Labour party entirely on merit, and who was also a shadow cabinet member of Essex county council.

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to hear hon. Gentlemen praising their female Conservative colleagues. It is true that my party has not yet produced a woman Prime Minister, although we have certainly had outstanding women Cabinet members. Since the hon. Gentleman decided to introduce a bit of controversy to the debate, it is also fair to say that, despite the fact that the Conservative party and Government were headed for so many years by a woman of extraordinary and outstanding abilities, women in our country are doing far better under our Labour Government and our Prime Minister.

Eleanor Laing: It is very good to have some support on this side from gentlemen colleagues. I see that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has just resumed his place, thereby doubling the number of gentlemen on the Labour Benches. It is sad that there is so little support there.
	Does the Minister agree that, to encourage more women to come into the House and into politics generally, those of us who are already involved have to be seen to be serious in the undertaking of our duties, and not to trivialise the matter of women's employment rights, mothers' rights and so on; and that there is a danger that, if there are continual press reports about breastfeeding in the Chamber, the outside world will find it hard to take us seriously? Should not we be discussing—as she has done this afternoon—the many millions of women out there who need support?

Patricia Hewitt: I have been addressing many of the very serious issues that face women throughout our country, but breastfeeding is also a serious issue to do with the health of our children.
	Our Government are working for women and listening to them every day, but it is good to have one day of the year when we debate women's interests and concerns specifically, and I look forward with keen anticipation to hearing further contributions to this debate.

Caroline Spelman: We are here to celebrate international women's day, and it is right to begin by paying tribute to all the organisations that have worked hard to improve the lot of women in society. I listened attentively to the Minister, who seemed to give the impression that all was rosy in the garden and that the Government could take the credit for all the achievements, but it is right to record our thanks to all the organisations who work so hard on our behalf.
	In some ways, I find it absolutely astonishing that it is necessary for us to debate the subject of women and equality more than 20 years after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The fact that we have to do so takes us far beyond any party political argument and goes to the very nature of British culture. Anyone who might dispute the need for this debate should take account of some very disturbing facts.
	Male graduates aged between 20 and 24—that is largely before family responsibilities come along—in full-time employment earn more than their female counterparts even when they have achieved the same class of degree, studied the same subject and work in the same occupations and industries. The pay gap widens as they get older. There is a 25 per cent. pay gap by the time that they get to their late 30s.
	Apart from the obvious lack of justice, that has knock-on effects. Women who have left employment constitute the poorest group of people in the country—the most dependent on state benefits. That is partly due to the fact that women take career breaks to have families, during which time they cannot contribute to a pension scheme. Moreover, many of the schemes are geared to the male model of unbroken service from first job to retirement. This is a wake-up call to all those designing new pension products: they must take account of the typical lifetime working model for women.
	That is quantifiable. The average net entitlement to a pension is £67.68 per week, but that obscures the contrast in that the male average is £82 per week and the female average £59.29. Recently retired males have higher pension entitlements than females in the same position, because of their more complete contribution record and, on average, higher earned income.
	The Fawcett Society, whose work I praise unreservedly, has established that only one in five women have set aside enough provision for their retirement. We should be shouting that from the rooftops, while there is still time for younger women to prepare. The problem is that the old reliance on a husband's earnings to provide enough for a couple to live on in old age has been blown apart by the rising divorce rate and incidence of family breakdown.
	Women's capacity to prepare for a dignified retirement is not helped by the fact that many of the jobs open to women are part-time and poorly paid, leaving them little leeway to set aside savings for later life. The pay gap between the genders has remained largely unchanged for part-time women since the late 1970s: a staggering 41 per cent. Those are figures provided by the Equal Opportunities Commission. Inequalities exist even in well-established, female-dominated public sector professions such as nursing. Men are 80 per cent. more likely to be in the top nursing grade H than their female counterparts. Last year, 77 per cent. of all hospital consultants were men, and only 6 per cent. of consultant surgeons were women. I know only one female consultant who has managed to negotiate part-time working, but invariably her male colleagues unhelpfully arrange administration meetings on her day off.
	The Employment Bill, which is currently going through the Lords, tries to address some areas of inequality, but we want to alert the Government to some health warnings. In February, women bosses at the Institute of Directors expressed concern about increasing employment rights for women and the possibly damaging effects of the Bill on their employability. Small businesses in particular are already groaning under the burden of red tape introduced by the Government. They favour voluntary arrangements between employers and their staff, not more legislation. Maternity leave legislation can be difficult to manage, especially for small companies. Employers currently have to keep a woman's job open when she is on maternity leave, but the woman has no obligation to return. Many women choose not to do so, and for small businesses that can lead to difficulties.
	The evidence is that many women decide not to return to work because of the lack of affordable child care. The Government should concentrate their resources on that problem. What is being done to encourage employers to increase child care provision without placing extra burdens on employers? The depletion in the number of child minders, who feel that they are being pushed out by the Government's preference for institutional early-years education, has been a serious blow to working women, who need the flexible, domestic-based service that child minders can provide and which institutions find difficult to match.

Sandra Osborne: Is the hon. Lady aware that under successive Conservative Governments people could not get child care for love nor money?

Caroline Spelman: I am not here for historical debate; I was not a Member of Parliament under a Conservative Government. We are talking about women and equality today, and the Minister set out for the House the good things that, in her view, the Government have done. I urge the Minister to focus the Government's attention on things that need to be done; many working women and many child minders have beaten a path to my door over the reduction in the number of child minders.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I am stuck in a rut; in this place, it is usually one of them. I accept the hon. Lady's desire to make things better, but it is difficult to accept her lack of historical awareness. Under the Conservative Government, there was no financial help for women seeking child care, whether from a child minder or an institution. The working families tax credit, which has a child care element, is increasing the number of child minders in my constituency. In addition, the child care strategy is making more places available.
	I like the tone of this debate, which suggests that both Government and Opposition could do better. However, we have to accept the record of the past.

Caroline Spelman: One must be careful with the expression about who wears the trousers, but I should like to make it clear for the record that I am an hon. Lady.
	Labour Members have been in power for five years, so they must accept that they have a bit of history. It is not true that there was no help with child care under the Conservative Government; there was help with out-of-school child care. I made a specific point about the demise of child minders. The Minister made an important point about changes in British society concerning women and the workplace. As she said, in the 1950s the typical model involved a delineation of roles; women wanted to stay at home much more and raise their families. Now, there is a rise in the number of women, increasingly with under-fives, wanting to go to work. There is therefore a new demand for the appropriate care of children under school age, which we must meet from the supply of child care services. I certainly want to draw to the attention of the Government the loss of child minders.
	The Federation of Small Businesses gave a clear verdict on the Employment Bill, which it described as hefty and a raft of employment legislation too far. Its employment spokesman, Bill Knox, said:
	"This Employment Bill has got to be the final word . . . our members broadly support family friendly policies but there is no doubt that parental leave is generous to employees and hard on employers"
	—in small businesses—
	"which can only harm productivity."
	At the very least, the federation wants the Government to deliver on promises to limit the bureaucracy involved in administering those policies. That is important for small businesses; while they welcome family-friendly policies, the burden of administering them is sometimes the straw that breaks the camel's back.
	Similar misgivings apply to the European Union's equal treatment directive. In a speech to European Standing Committee B in February, I made a plea for greater clarity and simplicity in the language used to describe proposed legislation in the directive. At the moment, employers may be put off employing women because of the obscurity and complication of legislation surrounding their employment. There is also the question of the cost of regulations in the directive.
	Nearer to home, we need more women in Parliament; we supported the change in the Sex Discrimination Act to allow political parties to take positive action to get more women into all areas of public life. I should like to place on the record the fact that our party is doing its bit; we are going to change our selection procedures in the light of that legislative change. For the sake of Parliament's standing in the eyes of the public, we must be seen to be working in ways that do not deter half the population from taking part. I wish to correct a misconception and, in so doing, may cast doubt on the question of paternity leave, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). It is generally unknown in the wider population that there is no maternity leave for women Members of Parliament; leave is discretionary and must be negotiated with the Whips. It is interesting to observe that Members of Parliament have no right to maternity leave.

Joan Ryan: Does the hon. Lady support the extension of paid maternity leave in the Employment Bill from 18 to 26 weeks? I agree that child care is terribly important, and welcome the national child care strategy—the first one we have ever had—and the expansion of child care places. However, paid maternity leave over a reasonable period is vital, and women want it. I was unsure whether the hon. Lady supported that or not.

Caroline Spelman: I was giving the Government a health warning about the change. Under the changes to maternity leave, after only six months' employment employees become entitled to a full year's maternity leave, at the end of which they can still choose not to return. Small businesses faced with a choice of candidates for a position may start to have misgivings about employing a woman of childbearing age. I was warning the Government about the impact that the change may have on women's employability. We must balance the needs of employers and employees; without doubt, the needs of small businesses are different from those of large corporations.
	My own experience is that once one has got into Parliament, being a woman is no bar to getting on; if anything, male colleagues respect one more because they know the hurdles that have had to be overcome to get into Parliament. Women make up more than half the population, but only 18 per cent. of our MPs are female, which is lower than in Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Rwanda and Namibia and an indictment of the mother of Parliaments. We could do more by mentoring candidates and providing role models to prove that it is possible to become an MP. Parliament is making some progress on more family-friendly working practices. The example of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), comes to mind; she demonstrated that ministerial office and maternity can be combined.
	On thinking about the title of this debate, I had an inkling that I would be disappointed in one respect, and I am afraid that my misgivings have been borne out. I suspected that the debate would focus on improved rights for women in the developed world, but they pale in comparison with inequality between the sexes in the developing world. We should remember that our debate is taking place in the context of international women's day.
	It is no exaggeration to say that poverty has a female face, and nowhere is that more true than in the developing world. There are many disturbing facts, and I shall highlight just a few that really hit home in preparing for the debate. According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women, women are still the poorest of the world's poor, representing 70 per cent. of the 1.3 billion poor in the world. Moreover, the number of women living in poverty has doubled since 1970. In other words, we are going backwards. Rural women—mainly farmers—represent more than a quarter of the total world population. On average, they produce more than half the food that is grown, but they own only 2 per cent. of the land. Women represent two thirds of all illiterate people.
	There are terrible inequalities in maternal mortality. According to UNICEF, a woman dies every minute while pregnant or giving birth. A woman who gives birth in a developing country has as high as a one in 13 chance of dying, but in developed countries such as ours the risk is one in 4,100.
	On health care for women, the startling fact is that last year, 1.3 million women died of HIV-AIDS. However, In sub-saharan Africa, teenage girls are five times more likely to be infected than boys, because most are infected not by boys of their own age, but by older men. That problem needs to be addressed. Older women in sub-saharan Africa sometimes look after as many as 30 or 40 grandchildren orphaned by HIV-AIDS.
	Female genital mutilation is still a problem in east Africa, despite the Kenyan, Ugandan and Tanzanian Parliaments adopting legislation to outlaw it. In Tanzania, it is still performed at an early age by about 20 per cent. of the 130 main ethnic groups.
	We have all become much more acquainted with the plight of women in Afghanistan. After 20 years of civil war, a disproportionate number of widows—an estimated 50,000 in Kabul alone—head families. Tajik widows in a refugee camp whom I met complained bitterly that, without men, there is no one to push to the front of the queue to get food for them. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was the only country in the world to ban women from secondary education. Unsurprisingly, the literacy rate for women is just 13 per cent.
	Reconstruction must now partly involve re-establishing women in the country's hierarchy. In living memory—thank goodness—women Ministers have participated in Afghan politics, but there are already bad signs. Initially, the Afghan women's ministry was not funded, and it remains underfunded.

Hugo Swire: Every Member of this House will agree that, in an ideal world, more women should be involved in front-line Afghan politics, but does my hon. Friend not regret the fact that, when our forces were actively engaged in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 11 September, certain Labour Members concentrated on achieving a gender balance in an Afghan government? Perhaps they should have talked more about getting the ethnic balance right.

Caroline Spelman: We must be very careful about imposing on Afghan people a western view of how they should run their country. Until I visited that region, I did not understand the wearing of the burqa. That seems abhorrent to us in the west, but it was explained to me that women are in purdah—behind the curtain—and if one wants to go out, one must do so behind the curtain. That point had not occurred to me. The western perspective persists that it is an abhorrent custom, but one Afghan woman told me, "You want me to remove the burqa, but you forget that I have to go home to my husband, and he hasn't changed." We must therefore be very careful about imposing a western view, but we support the Interim Administration's appointing two women Ministers.

Fiona Mactaggart: For the avoidance of doubt, will the hon. Lady confirm that she thinks it abhorrent that, in Afghanistan, women were excluded from schools and women doctors were refused the right to practise? Does she agree that that is an abuse of international human rights standards that every democratic politician in the world, western or otherwise, should be concerned about?

Caroline Spelman: I hope that the hon. Lady was listening when I highlighted the abhorrent fact—let there be no doubt—that Afghanistan is the only country in the world to have banned women from secondary education. What flows from that is the closure to the professions that she describes. I was merely pointing out that it is important not to impose our norms on the culture of another country. Islamic societies do not necessarily discriminate against women, and I do not want anyone to think that I was arguing to the contrary.
	In 1977, 15 per cent. of legislators in Afghanistan were women. Until the 1990s, women comprised 70 per cent. of all teachers, 50 per cent. of Government workers and 40 per cent. of medical doctors. Throughout the developing world, women can occupy positions of power and influence.

Helen Jackson: In the context of the disastrous treatment of women in Afghanistan, does the hon. Lady agree that women are often a strong and powerful force in conflict resolution at a community and a national level? If women are excluded in a country that is suffering violence, it is far more difficult to achieve a peaceful and democratic resolution.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Lady will know that such an analysis of the peaceful and reconciliatory role that women can play in conflicts applies to many parts of the world, including close to home.
	Throughout the developing world, it is vital that women have better access to education, health care and the infrastructures that can help them to build up small businesses. In the most recent session of International Development questions, I called for microcredit to be used in Afghanistan to kick-start or re-direct production, thereby giving women the power to start their own small businesses. Aid agencies have helped immensely in that regard by establishing bakeries run by women.
	I commend to the Government Africa's "Send a Cow" charity, with which the Minister is doubtless familiar. It gives women in the third world a cow to provide milk for their village, enabling them to build from that example. Women with a cow are more immediately respected, because they can nourish their children and sell their milk. Other schemes that provide water nearer to villages can also release women from the daily drudgery of walking several miles each day to get water.
	There are many human rights abuses around the world and I cannot give a comprehensive list, but in the context of international women's day I want to discuss child trafficking, which is of great concern. It is mainly girls, particularly from west Africa, who are lured to European countries by promises of a better life and education. Some of them end up as virtual slaves, and others end up as prostitutes. In the wake of the Victoria Climbie tragedy, the spotlight is now being turned on private fostering. However, I hope that the Government will heed calls from Conservative Members to devote resources to an education campaign for parents in west Africa, so that we can spell out the inherent dangers of selling their children, simply in order that they can come to this country.
	Another abuse against women that has been in the news recently is the issue of Asian girls who have been brought up here being forced into marriages with men in India and Pakistan. In just 18 months, the Foreign Office has dealt with 240 cases of forced marriage, and has repatriated more than 60 young people who were taken abroad to be married against their will. I hope that the Government will tackle that issue.
	One of the greatest vehicles of empowerment for women is education, both here and in the developing world. Through education comes better health, and through health and education comes opportunity for change. A report produced by the YWCA on "Poverty: the price of young motherhood in Britain", shows that young women with no educational qualifications are almost twice as likely to report having a child in their teens as those who have GCSEs. Although, nationally, girls outperform boys, among ethnic groups Bangladeshi young women are twice as likely as their white peers to be without educational qualifications at the age of 16. Research by the Policy Studies Institute reveals that Bangladeshi girls are falling behind the boys by 10 per cent., which challenges the received wisdom that girls now do better than boys at school. I support the YWCA recommendation for a special working group on girls' school exclusion and disaffection. That issue is often lost in the generalisation that girls now outperform boys.
	It is true that when we compare the fate of women in the developed world with those in the developing world, we find that our lot is much happier, but violence against women by men is no respecter of race, class or colour. In this country we now have refuges for women escaping male violence—one for every 200,000 of the population—but in the third world such luxuries do not exist. In some cultures, it is practically the norm for men to mistreat their women. According to the secretary general of Amnesty International, Irene Khan,
	"Violence against women is one of the most pervasive yet hidden forms of human rights abuse throughout the world."
	So, where does that lead us? In this country, we need to temper legislation with consensus, to teach by example, to produce role models for women to imitate, and to encourage the practice of mentoring.
	We need to be sensitive to the rights of women in work to encourage them to break through the infamous glass ceiling. I often speak at girls' sixth form colleges on the subject of juggling work and family life. I advise the girls to work out their priorities in advance, to be bold in asking for what they need to balance their lives and, above all, to retain a sense of humour. However, if we fail to teach the boys at the same time that women expect to be treated as equals, we simply create a deeper gulf of misunderstanding, resentment and even violence.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Lady mentioned domestic violence and refuges. Will she acknowledge that the Home Office has done a lot of work with police authorities to try to ensure that women do not have to leave their homes and flee to refuges with their children, which is what they have had to do in the past?

Caroline Spelman: We could have a separate debate on domestic violence, and I might commend that to hon. Members, because it is an unspoken but important issue. As a new Member of Parliament, I was struck by what the police told me about domestic violence. When a case occurs, the problem is that they all too often have to send the woman back home. While the Home Office is beginning to address the issue in the domestic setting, it is vital that women have somewhere safe to go while the wider ramifications of the domestic dispute at the heart of the violence are investigated. I have learned from my surgeries that there are two sides to a story, and that an initial interview with one person does not always reveal all the aspects. If a woman has a safe place to go with her children, it can create the breathing space to consider the extent and nature of the problem.
	All that we do to help women achieve the equality for which they strive must be done in the certain knowledge that it is no mere concession to political correctness. By not treating women as equals, we are missing out on a lot of talent, skills and knowledge. We must carefully scrutinise legislation to achieve our aims. We must not allow red tape protecting women's rights at work to become another tool to beat women with, or an excuse not to employ them.
	Not for the first time since taking up my brief as shadow Secretary of State for International Development I have been struck by the huge gulf between what are seen as major problems in this country compared with what is happening in the developing world. That is never more true than in this debate on women and equality. As I hope I have been able to show, the lot of women in the developing world is a difficult, dangerous one. Yes, we must work to right our own inequalities, but let us not lose sight of the women of the third world who are centuries behind us and where the words "equality" and "woman" seem at present on opposite sides of a giant chasm.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has put a time limit of 12 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on. We have had three statements today, which has taken a lot of time out of this debate and many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If Members can limit their remarks to less than 12 minutes, fewer of them will be disappointed.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome this debate. It is too rare that we discuss the issue of equality and women, and we need to acknowledge that those two words still do not mesh together as well as they should. Equality for women is still a long way off. However, many of the formal barriers that women used to have to jump over have gone. The higher pass marks for those girls trying to get into grammar schools have gone. Lower pay for women teachers has theoretically gone, although in practice we know that women in the public services are not paid as well as men. I also wish the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) luck in his attempt to get rid of another formal barrier to women in private clubs.
	We know, however, that women still face constant and chronic disadvantages that make our society less effective. Like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I looked at the issue in an international context. As a supporter of an organisation called Womankind Worldwide, I wish to focus on four areas of literacy that it has described as important for women in developing countries and that are also important for women in Britain today. Those are literacies of the word, of money, of the body and of civic society.
	The obvious literacy that we all know about is the right to read. Indeed, my maiden speech was about the human right to read. I celebrate wholeheartedly the improvements in children's literacy achieved through the literacy strategy. When I first stood for election, less than half of 11-year-olds in my constituency reached the expected literacy standards, but that figure is now up to three quarters. That is good work, but an important job remains. We must give women in the poorest countries access to the right to read, but we must also give it to women in this country. Women who did not succeed in school or benefit from developed literacy strategies often work in jobs with less access to learning and training on the job than men have. We need to focus directly on women's education.
	We could make a difference in two specific areas. The first is those jobs where women help other women and other professionals to do their job better—nursing auxiliaries and teaching assistants are the two that come to mind. Fantastic, talented women who missed out in their first education do those jobs for terrible pay—teaching assistants, for example, are often only paid in term-time—and have the capacity to achieve more but cannot afford to take time out of those poorly paid jobs to go on full-time training courses. There are still not enough opportunities for teaching assistants to become teachers. I used to teach people to be teachers, and I know what it takes to be a good primary teacher.
	First, it takes the ability to talk to children. I used to work at one of the most high-powered education institutes in this country, and I taught many clever young men who did not know how to talk to children—it was as though they were talking to Martians. The wonderful thing about teaching assistants is that they know how to talk to children, so they have the first thing that they need.
	We must do a better job for nursing auxiliaries and teaching assistants to give them a ladder on which they can progress from their present situation to gain professional qualifications. For the most dynamic among them, those ladders exist. However, we need to give them leg-ups and more help. That would not only give women more opportunities but help to solve the teaching and nursing shortages in constituencies such as mine.
	The second area of education that is important to women is English for speakers of other languages. Many women who come to this country operate in their first language all the time. They do not get access to learning English, which cuts them off from access to the economy in many ways. We must ensure that women migrants get an early chance to learn English when they come here. I welcome those elements of the Home Secretary's proposals that will make that more possible, but I urge the Minister for Women to give him more power to his elbow, particularly in relation to women.
	On money, the Government have made a big difference for women in our Budgets. For the first time, we know how much better women have done than men from them. I am glad to say that, and it is right. Unless the Budget deals with some of the income inequalities that chronically disadvantage women, they will continue. We are still miles behind on equal pay. Britain is still 12th out of 15 in the EU in the width of the pay gap, and we must make more of a difference. I urge Ministers to lead the way in the public sector by using pay audits and by publicising schemes—having learned from the pay audit about levels of inequality—to tackle it.
	As a corollary of what I was saying about teaching assistants and nursing auxiliaries, we also need to provide more opportunities and support for women to get to the top of the professions and the jobs that they do. We all know that in almost every area, the largest number of men are at the top, and the largest number of women are at the bottom of almost any career structure, whether it is university lecturers and vice-chancellors, or, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, nurses at H-grade or the bottom grade. A particular task for the Government is to challenge institutions in the public sector and companies in the private sector not just to promote women but to give them opportunities for training and learning.
	The other times when we can make a big difference to the money situation of women is at the youngest age of life and at the oldest. Ensuring that women have access to affordable child care is a high priority. Nursery vouchers were the beginning of a mistake that in some ways the Government have made worse by introducing an earlier start for children's formal schooling. Too many children at just four years of age are going into primary schools. That is not the best place for a four-year-old. The learning that they need when they are rising five and just over three is about how to share their toys, how to queue up, how to listen and how to play nicely. Those things are not best taught in a reception class; they are much better taught in a playgroup or nursery. I worry that in our charge for high standards, we have sometimes forgotten that we start formal education earlier in this country than in any other in the world. There may be a price to pay for that. Research in America on the High/Scope Perry pre-school project found that children who had an early experience of constructive play were more likely to go to university and less likely to go to prison than children who had no pre-school experience or children who had a formal educational experience too early.
	The third literacy is that of the body. We urgently need to ensure that women's health is taken more seriously. Until very recently, all drugs were tested on men, and decisions on giving those drugs to women were based on men's test results. Women's bodies are less predictable because our hormone levels change from month to month, so it was thought that we were not such good subjects for testing. Nobody thought that it was not a good idea to assume that our bodies would react in the same way to drugs as men's bodies. Although drug testing is beginning to change, the same mindset determines which drugs to test. Therefore, the sorts of drugs being developed to deal with heart attacks and strokes relate to the heart attack patterns of men—who have their heart attacks at 40—and not to the heart attack patterns of women, who have their heart attacks after the menopause. We need to ensure that the Department of Health considers that issue, and that we consider the other issue that affects people's health—housing. In my constituency, women who live in disgusting housing keep telling me about how it is damaging the health of their children.
	I shall now deal with civic society and women's role in it. The hon. Member for Meriden said that men in her party recognise that it has been a struggle for women to become Members, so they do not discriminate against them. However, I was in the Lobby with a man from her party the other day who was surprised by the number of women there. He said, "How nice it is to see all these pretty fillies here." I thought to myself, "What century are we living in?" He was certainly living in a different one from me. Women achieve positions of power on merit, even if we are helped by positive action programmes. Let us look at what women who are here through the women-only shortlist process have achieved. Putting women into these positions means that thought is given to the consequences of policy—the school-run rather than just roads and trains, and about how women live their lives. Unless policy addresses things such as the dog poo in the lift or the man exposing himself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 12 minutes.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome this debate and hope that it will become an annual event.
	It was interesting to hear the Minister reflect on how far we have come in 50 years. It gave me pause to reflect that, even 27 years ago, when I first went to university, all my parents' relatives were saying, "Why are you encouraging her to go to university? Education is wasted on a girl." That was not so long ago. We have taken great strides since.

Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I am sure that she will be given injury time. I want to congratulate her wholeheartedly on her presence in the Chamber for this debate, but does she feel that she could do more to encourage more Liberal Democrat Members to take part? Members of her party occupy positions of responsibility in major cities such as Sheffield. Could she do more to encourage them to put the needs of women with regard to public transport and buses, for example, before the needs of the men who drive the private cars? Liberal Democrats are rapidly gaining a reputation for dismissing that policy area.

Sandra Gidley: I could give a typical male-type answer and bluff, but I will not. I am a female politician and we have a good reputation for honesty. I admit that I am disappointed that not a single other Liberal Democrat Member is present. I am so ashamed of that that I have no qualms about having my disappointment recorded in Hansard. I will take up the matter with my hon. Friends, and deliver a kick to the appropriate part of certain colleagues' anatomies.
	I must add that some Liberal Democrat Members had constituency engagements—some of them involving women—that prevented them from attending, even though they wanted to. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish".] It is not rubbish. I am not in the habit of making false statements. The evidence speaks for itself, however, and I am disappointed.
	I know that one of you is going to stand up and say, "Why didn't your party approve all-women shortlists?" You may well ask that question, as I was disappointed at that. I was on the other side of the argument, the side that lost.

Anne Campbell: Come and join us.

Sandra Gidley: It is not all about women.
	My party has made a huge commitment both financially and in encouraging and mentoring women in ways not entirely dissimilar to the seminars that the Government are arranging around the country to attract more women into public life. Mentoring is important for women, and we are doing a lot of that behind the scenes. My party is doing more than that, however.
	My party had 50-50 shortlists in the last European elections. That proved an effective way of ensuring that half our party's representatives in Europe are women. No one can say that those women did not get there on merit. They would probably have got there anyway.
	I back the findings of the recent Equal Opportunities Commission survey. It pointed out that, in the absence of proportional representation—a subject that I am sorry to have to bring up—only positive discrimination will get more women into Parliament. That happened for the Labour party in 1997. I was disappointed that you went backwards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must remember to use the correct parliamentary language. She keeps using the word "you", and she must not when she is making her remarks.

Sandra Gidley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We have to find ways to use the measures that the Government have introduced. We have tried 50-50 shortlists in the past, but they have not always worked. I look forward with interest to finding out what all parties are going to do to deal with what will be a severe problem. Today is exceptional, in that there are more women than men in the Chamber. Normally, the opposite is true, and that is a barrier for women who want to enter the House. Unless the women's agenda is at the forefront of what we do, there will be no change.
	I do not want to be completely carping today. The Government have achieved some success. Some Bills, such as the Employment Bill, have significantly enhanced the conditions of working parents. That must be a good thing, and it is a perfect example of putting women at the forefront of any legislation.
	We must also try to make it easier for fathers to play an active part in raising their young. When we as a society speak of the women's agenda, we sometimes forget that many men would prefer to take a more active role in child care.
	I also warmly welcome the Government's commitment to the national minimum wage and to increasing the number of child care places. The target for the latter is 1.6 million by 2004, but nearly half those places remain to be found in the next two years. When the Minister replies, I hope that we will learn what measures have been put in place to ensure that the target is met.
	The Minister mentioned part-time working, and the return of women to work after childbirth. Problems can still arise and, although things are getting better, we must continue to find ways to ensure that we take up the skills that are on offer. We must not offer women what many will consider to be an unacceptable, take-it-or-leave-it option.
	I want to spend most of my time talking about women in the public services. Unfortunately, there is much evidence that institutionalised sexism persists in the NHS. Reports of more explicit discrimination at the more traditional level, especially among surgeons, are widespread. For reasons that may include lower career expectations, family breaks and inherent discrimination, reports indicate that women are paid less than men in the same profession.
	Men are less likely to have as much academic training or as many qualifications as women, yet they are twice as likely to be boosted into the higher echelons of the NHS. Earlier, we heard figures that showed the discrepancies that exist in the NHS. Work by the Fawcett Society shows that 75 per cent. of NHS staff are women, and that 88 per cent. of nurses are female. However, women doctors on average earn £180 a week less than men, and they are reported to work longer hours. We cannot say that we do not get value for money.
	One reason for the persistent pay gap is that women are generally under-represented in senior and management grades. Even in the female-dominated nursing profession, only 77 per cent. of staff at managerial level are women. The Fawcett Society figures show that 63 per cent. of psychiatric nurses are female, but that only 47 per cent. of managers are female.
	Women make up just over half the total number of house officers and senior house officers, but, at about 21 per cent. according to the latest figures, they are still under-represented among consultants. Even then, variations persist, with women accounting for 5 per cent. of surgeons, and for fewer than 20 per cent. of consultants in accident and emergency and general medicine. However, women account for a dizzy 37.6 per cent. of paediatricians.
	More women than men in the NHS choose to take advantage of flexible working contracts. That option allows workers to enjoy the equivalent of part-time posts, but there are no job shares at consultant level. The Government have made no long-term commitment to providing adequate funding for junior flexible working contracts, although a two-year funding sticking plaster has been applied. I hope that the Government will commit to dealing with some of the more long-term problems.
	More women are entering medicine. Many will want a break, for family reasons. We have to accept that women have babies and leave work for a while. That is what we do—not best, but certainly better than men. I hope that the Minister will say what assessment has been made of the extra numbers of doctors who will have to be trained, in addition to what is set out in the NHS plan. A severe gender crisis is quickly coming down the tracks in the NHS, but I have not seen that acknowledged.
	In higher education, the pay gap is supposed to have narrowed by 10 per cent. over the past decade, but if one analyses it, one finds that the gap has increased in the past five years and is now about 17 per cent. On average, men earn £113 more a week. The gravest example is in St. George's hospital medical school, where the pay gap is 45 per cent., which we should all be ashamed of.
	The Government have some control over the NHS and the education service, but it appears that it is still just jobs for the boys. Will the Government commit to undertaking pay audits in those sectors so that the process is more transparent and we can see more readily whether there is any deliberate, institutional or accidental discrimination?
	We have touched on the election, and I shall not dwell on private grief, so I shall turn to public bodies. In 2001, of those serving on public bodies, 34 per cent. were women. That has risen by less than 2 per cent. since 1997. The target seems to have slipped: it was for 50-50 representation, but the latest figure is between 45 and 50 per cent. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the target for all Government bodies, and the date by which it will be achieved? There seems to be confusion about that.
	In non-departmental public bodies, only 27 per cent. of women are at executive level, and even fewer, 25 per cent., are at advisory level. In the Prison Service, only 17 per cent. of the members of boards of visitors are women. As has been said, nationalised industries hit the bottom of the scale at 14 per cent. female representation, and only the NHS is approaching respectability at 43 per cent., but that must be set in the context of the overall gender balance of the work force.
	I admit that there are problems similar to those faced by political parties. The boys do not want to give up their jobs, and they make it very difficult for women to progress in their careers. For many roles there is a still a man-shaped hole to fill, and we have to get past that. Chairmen, or chairpersons, of the board do not have to be men, and MPs do not have to be men, but if one asks somebody to describe an MP or a chairperson, they will come up with a male figure. We must challenge some of those perceptions and smash those stereotypes.

Eric Joyce: Does the hon. Lady think that it would be a good idea for the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson for women to be a woman, rather than a man?

Sandra Gidley: I am the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, and the last time I looked, I was still female.
	While preparing for the debate, I accessed the Women's National Commission website. The personal experience section was well meant, but I am not sure that it had the right image. If I had been accessing the site as a woman looking for a job, or a way into a public body, I would have been slightly put off by the fact that at the top of the list was a dame, closely followed by a baroness. What should have been at the top was everyday stories of female folk, so that a woman looking at the site thinks, "Yes, I can do that too. I can take part." The perception that we have even of the women in public life can be somewhat skewed by the images that are portrayed.
	Women have had the vote for over 70 years, but unfortunately we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality. I hope that all of us here today are committed to working towards that and, as much as possible, to working together.

Ann Cryer: Those who are of a certain age—my age or a bit younger—may remember the weekly article that used to be written in a lovely style by Jill Tweedie. It was called "Diary of a Faint-Hearted Feminist". At that time, I regarded myself as being in that category. I have changed a bit, and I am a little less faint-hearted—although I would still not call myself a militant feminist—probably as a result of being in this place for five years and enduring the gentleman's club-like attitudes and atmosphere of the Chamber and the Smoking Rooms.
	In addition, I have had to do a great deal of work, which is a great pleasure but upsets me at times, to help my young Asian women and girls. That has pushed me a little towards militant feminism because I do get a bit angry with the attitude of some of the so-called, self-styled Asian leaders in the Bradford area. I think that it is a Bradford thing, and perhaps someone will inform me whether it has spread to other parts.
	In February 1999, I secured an Adjournment debate, which I called "Human Rights (Women)", so that it did not seem too controversial. I was petrified of calling it "Forced Marriages", although it was about the forced marriages of Asian women and girls. We have four men here today. On that morning, I think that only one man was present. He was from Bradford, and he nodded in all the right places but he did not participate in the debate, so not a single man spoke from the Labour Benches on that important issue. That was the first time that forced marriages had been mentioned in Parliament, and I regarded the debate with some trepidation. In fact, I was terrified.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has left her seat, was present that day and, to give her credit, she spoke well on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) also spoke in the debate. It was a good debate, but it was a pity that we did not have more men participating. I wonder to this day why that was the case. Why do men move away from confronting this particularly terrible situation that so many Asian girls find themselves in? I am not moving away from it; I am sticking with it.
	I am delighted with many of the measures that the Government have introduced. This is not a party political broadcast, and I rarely make such comments. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned that 420 young women and girls have been repatriated, some from India and many from Bangladesh and Pakistan. That happened not with the wave of a magic wand but because the Government focused on the matter. Since I raised the subject three years ago, they have been working assiduously to stop that practice. They started with a Home Office working group, and then both the Home Office and the Foreign Office set up action plans. All that sounds terribly trendy, and in some cases it may not mean anything, but in this case it did.
	The Foreign Office set up a consular desk simply to look after girls who had been whisked away. As the hon. Lady said, 420 have been repatriated in the last 18 months. The consular division of the Foreign Office also launched a video last Monday, and I do not know whether it is an accident but that seemed to coincide with international women's day. The video explains what marriage is all about. One would not think that it was necessary, but it is. It explains the value of marriage in all sections of the community, including arranged marriage. It stated specifically what an arranged marriage can be, and I would not knock arranged marriages because they can be vastly superior to some of our own methods. The video went on to talk about forced marriages, and three people spoke about their experience of those.
	That is excellent stuff, and the Government have done very well. The Home Office has at last recognised the need for English to be spoken. The White Paper suggests that young men and women who come here as husbands and wives ought to be learning English. That is already a vague requirement for citizenship, but the requirement will be more precise, and a good knowledge of English will be needed, as will a knowledge of institutions, rights and responsibilities. All that is very good, and it will improve the lot of many of my Asian women and young girls.
	The indigenous community should not be too smug. We are not all that good when it comes to gender equality. If we were, there would be equal numbers of men and women in this place and in many other institutions. There would not be a glass ceiling for executive women in business.

Andrew Selous: I join the hon. Lady in congratulating the Home Office on the excellent work that it has done in promoting marriage among her ethnic minority constituents. Will she join me in regretting the Government's decision this week to withdraw funding from national marriage week?

Ann Cryer: I was not aware of that. I am not sure how much difference that will make. I am in favour of marriage, as I think are most of us on the Government Benches. We cannot all get married for various reasons but, by and large, the Government are in favour of marriage. A great deal has been done. The video to which I have referred explains clearly that marriage is a good thing. It does not knock marriage. It deals with the issue of forced marriage.
	If we had followed the Scandinavian example, we would by now have equal numbers of men and women in this place and in the other place. That would be good. It would send out a message to the Asian community that we are concerned about gender equality.
	Unfortunately, the only way that we could start to move towards gender equality in this place was to have all-women shortlists. That is not a perfect system, and I do not think that any of us consider it to be so. However, I think that it is as good as we shall get. The Scandinavians can have equal numbers because they have list systems, but I do not particularly like such systems because they give too much power to the leadership, and I am opposed to that. I prefer to stick with the first-past-the-post system, so the only way in which we can bring about improvement is to have all-women shortlists. I am pleased that the Conservative party will be adopting that system. I wish that the Liberal Democrats would do so, and all power to the elbow of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley).
	Shortly after being elected to this place, I joined the Council of Europe and became a member of its equal opportunities committee. International women's day took place recently, and we passed a letter that was to be sent to the Nigerian ambassador in Paris. We meet in Paris. The letter reads:
	"Your Excellency, I hope that this request does not arrive too late. I have just heard that on 12 January last, a young 35-year-old Nigerian woman, Ms Safya Husseini Tungar Fudu, was to be buried alive up to the chest and then lapidated to death for having born a child without being married. The President of the Sharia Court of Appeal of the State of Sokoto has adjourned the case to 18 March."
	That is next Tuesday. I am reading the letter so that all Members may make representations to the Nigerian embassy in London. The letter continues:
	"We ask you to take the necessary steps to ensure that this barbaric and unworthy judgment is swiftly set aside in compliance with the principles of international law and the principles governing human dignity."
	The case is horrific. I hope that everyone will write to the Nigerian embassy to make it clear that what is happening is entirely unacceptable. Whether it is labelled Sharia or whatever, it is unacceptable.
	There is a less than satisfactory state of affairs within the indigenous population. For example, there is the Church of England. I tabled early-day motion 755 about a month ago, which is headed "Gender Equality in the Church of England". I will skip through it quickly. It reads:
	"That this House notes the Church of England is exempted from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 due to the attitudes and activities of a minority who are in disagreement with the ordination of women; affirms the need to strengthen and forward the movement against discrimination on grounds of gender; trusts the Church will thus be encouraged to catch up speedily with the vast majority of institutions; and believes that the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury could provide the perfect opportunity to forge leadership which would unite the Church of England behind justice for women and end the unfortunate and embarrassing need for 'flying' bishops'."
	I do not have time to go into what flying bishops are, but I am sure that some Members know what I am talking about.
	A young lady went to a selection conference for ordination. She was questioned closely about her child care arrangements. Were the young men at that selection conference questioned equally closely about their child care arrangements? Even if they were, it would be unfair if selection conferences were to come down against young women on that ground. She was not selected, and she felt strongly that those conducting the conference were assuming that she could not cope with child care and being a Church of England vicar.
	Many women Members cope well—I am amazed by them—with young children and a job in this place. Some of them are Ministers.
	Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) tabled early-day motion 927, which is headed, "Military Action against Iraq". By and large, wars are waged by men. I know that this is a generality, but wars are suffered mainly by women and their children. I supported the Government on the need for intervention in Afghanistan because I loathed and detested the Taliban because of their attitude to and cruelty to women. However, I would have grave reservations about any attack on Iraq.
	Finally—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her 12 minutes.

Robert Walter: I am delighted to participate in the debate. I shall deal briefly with two issues that are covered by legislation that the House has been or will be considering this Session. These issues are the selection of election candidates and the situation in private members' clubs.
	Currently, Britain has one of the lowest levels of political representation of women in Europe. It has been argued that the best way to counter the trend is for parties to use positive action mechanisms. Encouragement, coercion and shame seem not to have worked. Where positive action has been used it has dramatically increased women's representation.
	During the passage of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill, I highlighted that at the previous election we saw 118 women elected to Parliament, which was a smaller number than in 1997. That represents progress at a rate of about 1.5 women a year in the 82 years since women have been eligible to sit in this place. We seem to have gone into reverse, and only Ireland and France have lower levels of female representation.
	Positive action is needed, and not only because women are not able to succeed on merit. It is needed because discrimination in the selection process means that they are rarely given the opportunity to try to become elected. Opaque discrimination is inherent in the selection process of all political parties. I suggested on Second Reading of the Bill relating to election candidates that they are predominantly elderly selectors, and in some Tory constituencies might be looking for a married man who is about 40, with a reasonable career in the City, the law or the Army, with some experience of local government. The real clincher would be the attractive wife, two smashing kids and a labrador. The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 is not a patronising measure; it is permissive. Political parties may take advantage of it if they wish, but it does not force any party to adopt all-women shortlists if it does not want to do so. I believe that the measure is essential and will be temporary, although it is very timely.
	I turn now to two other measures: the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced in this House in my name and those of several other hon. Members, and the identical Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which received its Second Reading last night in the House of Lords. The measure is simple: it is about dignity and simply provides that if a club offers membership and facilities to men and women, it must do so on equal terms.
	When I introduced a similar Bill three years ago, I did not foresee its far-reaching implications. I had had personal experience of the injustice of a club that offered membership to both men and women, but gave women only second-class membership. I refer to the Carlton club, in respect of which I had been part of campaign to try to remedy that injustice. There have now been three separate occasions on which the club has narrowly missed the opportunity to move itself into the modern world. Although others have resigned from the Carlton club both before and after me, the club seems not to want to budge on the issue. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for being the first leader of the Conservative party in 150 years to decline to become a member of the Carlton club because of this very issue. I also congratulate other Conservative Members who have resigned from it in the past few years. Of course, when I introduced my Bill three years ago, it failed, as do many private Members' Bills.

Cheryl Gillan: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the Carlton club, it may interest him to know that a few years ago, I became the second woman chairman of the Bow group. I was taken aside by a Carlton club member—we used to hold our meetings there regularly—and told that it would probably be all right, as long as I did not make myself too obvious.

Robert Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful and supportive intervention.
	In December last year, I reintroduced my original Bill under the ten-minute rule. It is due to be considered on Second Reading tomorrow, but alas, it lies at No. 5 on the Order Paper, and I fear that it is unlikely to make progress. I was therefore delighted when Lord Faulkner of Worcester introduced the identical Bill in the other place. As I said, it received its Second Reading last night almost without opposition; I fear that the only slight hint of opposition came from a Labour Member, Lord Borrie, who felt that the measure was ahead of its time. I am sure that that Bill will make progress; in fact, I know that it will do so. If all goes well, their lordships will complete all stages of consideration in May and then send it down the Corridor to us.
	I am extremely grateful for the cross-party support for my Bill and its sister Bill in the other place. I am encouraged by the support from Conservative Members, including Front Benchers. I hope that the actions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Carlton speak for themselves.
	I should also like to express my thanks and admiration to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who has made it absolutely clear to me that she now supports the measure. I thank her for that support and for her generosity in meeting me with her officials to discuss how we might take the matter forward. However, I should like unreservedly to apologise to her if the detail of our recent meeting was misrepresented in the press and set the record straight. On the basis that the Government would support the Lords' version of the Bill, she reasonably asked me whether I would withdraw my Bill in this House. I have said—this is a critical indication of the Government's support for the measure—that I shall withdraw my Bill if she can either directly or through the Leader of the House assure me and all the Bill's supporters in this House that Government time will be made available for consideration of the Lords' version when it comes to this place. The Government have to bite the bullet.

Barbara Roche: This afternoon, the hon. Gentleman told me on the telephone that the letter in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph was wrong. He has not confirmed that in his speech. For clarity, will he now repeat what he told me on the telephone this afternoon?

Robert Walter: I do not want to delay the House, but I will happily satisfy the hon. Lady. I repeat what I just said. The hon. Lady did not, as the letter in The Daily Telegraph said, suggest to me that if I withdrew my Bill, the Government would support the Lord's measure, which I think is the crux of what she asked me to say. What I said, and what I repeated, is that I will withdraw my Bill if the Government make time available in this place. I think that that is reasonable on my part, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree.

Barbara Roche: indicated dissent

Robert Walter: Perhaps we can discuss that on another occasion.
	The Government must bite the bullet. Conservative Members may be embarrassed by one club—the Carlton—but Labour clubs have an appalling record on this issue. The Clubs and Institutes Union, to which Labour clubs are affiliated, has 2,700 member institutions, eight of which are single sex, 1,080, 40 per cent., offer full membership rights to women, and 1,612, 60 per cent., give second-class status to women.

Eric Joyce: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is referring to Labour party clubs or is using the word labour in a generic form?

Robert Walter: They are clubs in the CIU, which is the union to which all Labour clubs are affiliated. I think that that is clear. These are Labour social clubs, sometimes called working men's clubs.

Eric Joyce: They are nothing to do with the Labour party.

Robert Walter: In the same way, there are Conservative clubs that are associated to the Association of Conservative Clubs.
	I have no doubt of hon. Members abhorrence of that situation, even if some are in denial. Right hon. and hon. Members would abhor the practice, and I have no doubt that they support the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill. But I am looking for a clear commitment that time will be made available in the House to deal with this outdated form of sex discrimination. Such a measure is long overdue. What I want to know now is whether the Government have the commitment to tell the House that they too feel that it is long overdue and will make time available for its debate.

Chris McCafferty: As chair of the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, hon. Members will not be surprised that I want to speak about reproductive rights and sexual violence against women and their impact on gender equality.
	Gender-based violence has been the subject of considerable discussion with regard to population matters since the concept of reproductive rights gained currency. The main focus of those discussions has been around domestic violence, honour killings and female genital mutilation. The United Nations declaration on the elimination of violence against women defines violence against women as
	"any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women."
	Gender-based violence often begins at an early age. Female infanticide has long been practised in societies where male children are still valued, economically and socially, above girls. During childhood, preferential allocation of family resources to male children often impacts negatively on the health of girls.
	Domestic violence is the most common form of gender-based violence and, as women enter marriage, often as adolescents and in some instances without their consent, it can become a problem. That is especially true where the husband is considerably older than his wife and where local custom recognises the husband as the dominant partner.
	Violence against women occurs in other situations where they are unable to exercise their right to fair treatment. They include the sexual exploitation of women refugees, rape as a weapon of war and trafficking in women for sex work. Trafficking in women has become a global problem and is one of the world's greatest violations of human rights. Up to 1,500 girls and young women are traded into the United Kingdom every year, and those affected are getting younger and younger—many are as young as 15.
	To eliminate the trafficking of women into the UK, we must work on three main areas: prosecution, protection and prevention. The crime is cash-rich and traffickers have little to lose. The maximum penalty for human trafficking is only 18 months to two years, so the Government's proposal to increase it is welcome and necessary.
	Shelters or refuges for women who are able to escape from traffickers are equally important. Because violence against women is frequently rooted in the unequal balance of power between men and women, the most effective counter-measure over the long term must remain continual progress towards the empowerment of women—equal educational opportunities for girls and, for adult women, greater control over their resources and greater decision-making powers. Those are prerequisites in the drive to eliminate the trafficking of human beings.
	The most extreme form of gender-based violence is honour killing, which is used mainly to control women's sexuality and occurs in many countries of western and south Asia. A woman who is raped or voluntarily engages in sex outside marriage is considered to have defiled the family name. In some cases, the woman or girl may be suspected only of shameful or dishonourable behaviour, but the allegation is enough to dishonour her family.
	In some countries, the law allows honour killing, but even where it is not explicitly permitted, the crime may not be prosecuted. For example, the penal code of Jordan exempts from any penalty a man who kills, wounds or injures a female relative who has committed adultery. A similar exemption exists in Syrian law. In Pakistan, hundreds of women are killed every year for crimes such as adultery, breaking an arranged marriage or simply attempting to obtain a divorce. A recent study of female homicide in Alexandria, Egypt found that 47 per cent. of all women killed had been murdered by a relative after they had been raped.
	Honour killing should and must be tackled. It is an outrage that those who commit such crimes are often openly admired in their communities and subjected only to token prosecution. For too long, some men have been getting away with murder. It is time for Governments and local communities to acknowledge that such actions are crimes and to act decisively. Honour crimes are not confined to developing countries. Whatever they are called, such crimes are committed worldwide. They occur whenever a man regards a woman as his property and seeks to uphold that false assumption by cruel and abusive force.
	One of the most complex areas of gender violence is female genital mutilation, or FGM—the name given to several different practices that involve cutting female genitals. Worldwide, an estimated 130 million girls and women have undergone FGM and at least 2 million girls a year are at risk of undergoing some form of the practice. It is usually performed on young girls between the ages of four and 13. The World Health Organisation has stated that FGM doubles the risk of a mother's death in childbirth and increases the risk of her child being born dead by up to three or four times.
	Most of the women and girls affected live in Africa, but those who have undergone or who are at risk of FGM are increasingly found in countries of western Europe and other developed countries, primarily among immigrant and refugee communities. Four main justifications are cited for this harmful practice: custom or tradition, religion, social pressure and women's sexuality. It should be remembered that, although FGM is practised by Jews, Christians and Muslims, none of those religions requires it. Although there are such justifications for maintaining the practice, FGM appears to be linked primarily to a desire to subordinate women.
	FGM violates the reproductive and human rights of women and girls because it interferes with their right to bodily integrity by removing healthy sexual organs without medical necessity. Although FGM is not undertaken with the intention of inflicting harm, its damaging physical, sexual and psychological effects make it an act of violence against women and girls.

Cheryl Gillan: I agree with the hon. Lady that female genital mutilation is appalling. Does she agree that even legislation does not seem to be the route to banishing this horrible mutilation in certain countries and that only fundamental and continuous education among men and women will lead to good progress being made in outlawing it?

Chris McCafferty: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. We need a bottom-up education of women, as well as of men and children. An education network would ensure that, as groups, they learned about human rights, so that people from countries where FGM is still common realise that the practice is not helpful and must change. However, countries such as Britain must do more through legislation.
	Enabling women to choose to abandon FGM requires an improvement in women's status. Governments need to reform all laws that serve as barriers to women's equality. Women must not stand alone in their demand for social justice; other sectors of society must be involved. Women need allies among politicians, religious leaders and health professionals.
	Last year, the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health held hearings on this difficult subject. The aim was to raise awareness of the subject in the UK and abroad, and to generate support for FGM prevention and eradication programmes. The UK has a law on FGM: the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Despite that Act, there has never been a prosecution in this country, although there is a lot of evidence that FGM is taking place here. An estimated 15,000 girls in the UK are at risk every year, so it is vital that the law is fully implemented.
	The hearings panel recommended that the Act be amended to ensure that UK residents who take girls abroad for the purpose of FGM can be prosecuted under UK law when they return, regardless of the legal status of FGM in the country where the mutilation took place. We would also like the name of the Act to be changed to incorporate the term "female genital mutilation". We want health professionals and other relevant authorities to report incidents of FGM so that accurate statistics can be obtained.
	Since the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women in 1993, much progress has been made in establishing reproductive rights. There is, however, a lot more to be accomplished in translating those rights into policies and programmes. Honour killings, human trafficking and female genital mutilation are all gender-based violations that attempt to subordinate women, and it is a fact that gender-based violence causes more disability and deaths in women between the ages of 15 and 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war put together.
	I am sure that all hon. Members condemn the centuries-old practices of slavery and torture, and racial and ethnic prejudice, and rightly so. We certainly condemn them when they involve people of colour, political dissidents or ethnic groups. The violation of women's human rights must be met by the same pressure in the House and internationally. Discrimination against girls is a persistent barrier to achievement. It is a violation of human rights and a threat to development—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time. I call Angela Watkinson.

Angela Watkinson: Most inequalities for women spring either directly or indirectly from the fact that women have children and men do not. That fact is never going to change, and we have to face up to it. The holy grail of total equality for women is, therefore, unachievable, but enormous progress has been made over the past decades, and I hope that that will continue.
	In the home, both parents now share responsibility for the children in a way that never happened when my children were young. That is not a personal criticism of my husband, I hasten to add. Nowadays, with property prices as they are, most mortgages are two-salary mortgages, so even women who would choose to stay at home and look after their children are unable to do so. The logistics of everyday life in a family—child care, school runs, travel, and going to Brownies, music and swimming lessons—are at least shared by two parents. In my day, women took full responsibility for the running of the entire household and looking after the family, and had a job outside the home only if they could fit it in. Progress has therefore been made in terms of women's ability to choose a career, if they wish to do so.
	In the 1950s, all women in the workplace were regarded as temporary employees. It was assumed that, as soon as a woman got married, she would leave fairly shortly afterwards to have children. Even single women who stayed in their jobs all their lives were still regarded as temporary employees, and put on a separate pay scale, on which they were paid less than men for doing exactly the same job. Thank heavens that those days are over. Executive positions for women were extremely rare in those days and, even in 2002, there is a predominance of women in junior posts in most large organisations.
	I received a card recently from PCS—the Public and Commercial Services union—about pay in the civil service. I phoned the union, but, unfortunately, it was unable to get back to me to clarify the statistic at the bottom of the card, which states:
	"According to Civil Service Statistics, the median gross salary of women is £14,130 (on a full-time equivalent basis) 72 per cent. that of men."
	The civil service is supposed to be an enlightened body, so it is very disappointing to know that that disparity still prevails. I wanted to clarify whether that figure involves there being a rate for the job. I hope that it does not mean that women are doing the same job as men for less money. I am sure that it does not, and that it means that there is a rate for the job. The conclusion, however, is that there is a barrier to women receiving promotion, and that a lot of women are undervalued and under-promoted. One wonders whether that is related to the basic fact that they have family commitments. I hope that the organisation will come back to me on that.
	Nowadays, there is much heightened awareness of sexism and sexual harassment, which were almost unheard of years ago. It would be a brave colleague on the Conservative Benches who made comments about a "pretty filly" within my earshot, and I do not know who the gentleman referred to earlier was. However, there have been some notable setbacks involving a few well publicised cases in which false accusations have been made. They have done enormous harm to society as a whole, and its perception of gender equality.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned Sweden. I visit Sweden regularly, because my son lives there. I was interested by the hon. Lady's comments about the list system used in elections. There are 101 seats on Stockholm city council, 51 of which are occupied by women. On my last visit, I asked what the women had done to achieve that, and they protested that they had done nothing. Sweden probably has a more advanced attitude than us to gender equality.
	New legislation will enable our own political parties to do what they think is right and fair to encourage more women and members of ethnic minorities to come to this place. I have grave reservations about all-women lists. I wonder how much credibility will be given to women who arrive here by that means, and what status will be afforded to them if it is thought that they might not have managed it otherwise.

Sandra Gidley: As a new Member, can the hon. Lady tell which female Labour Members are products of all-women lists and which are products of the standard selection procedure? I certainly cannot.

Angela Watkinson: I can do so only because it was well publicised at the time. I assure the hon. Lady that I cannot differentiate between them on performance grounds. What concerns me is the perception among the public that those on all-women lists have gained an unfair advantage. Perhaps it would be better if the names, gender and even ages of women applying to become candidates were obscured on their application forms, so that they would be chosen entirely on the basis of merit and experience.
	It is particularly important for women to be treated on equal terms in the armed forces, the police and the fire service, where they must serve alongside men. At present, serving men must be confident that women will provide the same service, and will be able to do the job. Diluting entry qualifications is dangerous if standards of service are to be maintained.
	The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is no longer present, spoke of the importance of education. I remember being given career advice at my co-educational grammar school—in 1958, I must confess. Girls were given separate advice. We were taken into the hall and asked to form two orderly groups, teachers on one side and nurses on the other, because those were seen as the only two respectable occupations for women. We are light years away from that now.

Sandra Gidley: Which group did the hon. Lady choose?

Angela Watkinson: Neither, and I was damned from that moment.
	There is, I believe, a correlation between the amount of sex education and sex information in schools and the alarming number of teenage pregnancies. Sex education for girls should be far more robust. A girl needs to be told in no uncertain terms that if she has sex with a young man with no job, no desire to get married, no desire to settle down, no interest in becoming a parent and no intention of taking responsibility for the outcome—a young man who, unlike the girl, is quite able to walk away from the situation—she will, literally, be left holding the baby. She will be dependent on family or benefits not just for nine months but for a very long time indeed, and will be taking on a 24-hour-a-day responsibility for perhaps 20 years.
	Life in a council flat alone with a baby is not half as exciting as that woman might think. Her education will be curtailed, her career prospects ruined, at least for the foreseeable future, and she will have many years of lonely struggle while her personal ambitions are shelved. The skills that she learns during those years are highly transferable to the workplace. Unfortunately, they are not recognised as such, and we can do much more to explain to employers that the survival skills that women learn in those years are of enormous benefit to an organisation. The best service that we can do for girls and boys in school is to encourage them to defer sexual activity until they are physically, emotionally and financially mature, and to plan parenthood. That is the single strategy in sex education that will help both genders.
	I look forward to when I am looked on not as a woman MP, but simply as an MP who happens to be a woman, and to when that is reflected throughout the employment spectrum and society.

Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome the debate because I have always regarded international women's day as a time of celebration. Indeed, I used to work for Women's Aid in Scotland, and our celebration lasted a whole week, so I am comfortable with carrying it on as long as possible.
	Legislation on equal treatment and the promotion of policies to ensure the participation of all citizens in our society—women and men alike—so that they are represented equally in the economy, in decision making and in social, cultural and civil life as part of their human rights, have made a great deal of progress domestically, at a European level and on an international basis through the United Nations. The Scottish Parliament, although in its infancy, is making significant progress on new ways of working that are more relevant to women in the community.
	There is still a gap, however. Not all the progress has been translated on a daily basis to produce equal rights between men and women. Women often do not enjoy equal rights in various spheres. Structural gender inequalities remain in place, fundamentally for the same reasons as always—the issue of power, where it lies, and how it is exercised in society in the private and public sectors.
	Many of the struggles for equality that women have pursued, as the Minister said, until recently led to an extension of rights and responsibilities to women as if they were the same as men. Other hon. Members alluded to the fact that that created the burden of the dual role of women being left largely unquestioned and taken for granted. Ironically, that approach recently created the image of the emancipated woman who can work, look after a home and children and participate in the public world all at the same time. Many of us can do that, but is the situation ideal and what pressures does it bring?
	The Minister also mentioned the sexual division of labour. She suggested that more progress has been made than I would perhaps recognise. I do not see in my daily life or in the lives of many of my female constituents men doing anything like their fair share of caring or domestic responsibilities. Although things have improved, there is a long way to go.
	I welcome gender mainstreaming, an approach by the Government to acknowledge that women's concerns, needs and aspirations are taken into account and assume the same importance as men's concerns in the design and implementation of policies. In parallel with bringing issues that have a direct and indirect impact on the lives of women into the heart of policy making, we also need to take specific actions in favour of women to address the particular problems that the Minister and others mentioned. They include low pay, the national child care strategy, equal pay, women's representation and violence against women. I spent 16 years working in the field of domestic violence before I was elected, and the subject is very close to my heart. Violence against women is at the extreme of a continuum of oppression of women that is world wide and no respecter of class, colour or creed, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is not in her place, has said. It has its roots in the male abuse of power.
	It is welcome that the Government have played such a prominent part in addressing domestic violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) highlighted the possibility of keeping women in the home where they had been subjected to domestic violence. From my many years of experience, I believe that there is still a need, which will continue in the long term, for refuge provision as well. We cannot say that we are making real progress until we make sure that every woman and child escaping domestic violence has a refuge space to go to if that is required. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
	It is not all down to Government or to mainstream political activity. Meaningful changes in women's lives are also dependent on social movements within civil society. Historically, women have relied on movements such as the women's movement—of which I am proud to regard myself as a member—to make advances and pressurise the Government to make advances for women, and I believe that that is still the case today.
	There can be no more stark reminder of the difficulties that women have faced in trying to seek equality than in the lack, historically, of decent, affordable child care. The dearth of child care in this country, which was almost bottom of the European Union league table for many years, was an outrage and a disgrace. Cuts in public services over the years meant that nursery places were like gold and, when my children were young, people could not get a nursery place for love or money. At that stage, like many other women, I did not have the money.
	The hon. Member for Meriden did not like to go over the history of her party in this regard, and who can blame her? However, I am old enough to remember the Tories' so-called "back to basics" campaign, which sought to dismantle the welfare state and create a welfare society based on women's unpaid labour. When we think of the effects of that policy on poor women and lone parents during that horrible time in our history, we may be cynical now about the Tories' new-found concerns about public services.
	In those days, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said, many women had to rely on state benefits or on partners who could be unreliable in supporting their partners and children. That is one of the reasons for the introduction of the Child Support Agency, although it turned out to be a disaster for a long time.
	Child care has always been key to women's economic independence. That is why I particularly welcome the national child care strategy and the working families tax credit, which have benefited many in my constituency.
	On low pay, again we have the worst record in the EU. I recognise that the Government are making progress and have plans to improve the situation. I do not think that a gender gap of 18 per cent. is good enough. There has been tremendous progress, but in this day and age such a gap should not exist.
	I support the recommendations of the equal pay taskforce in its report "Just Pay", commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission, for legislation to ensure that pay reviews are carried out. We will not get equal pay with voluntary arrangements. All the evidence shows that these things never happen in that way. I ask the Minister to comment on that.
	I have strong views about women's representation and very much welcome the legislation that the Government have introduced with all-party support. I hope that, as the Minister stated, we will see real progress and specific measures to improve the situation. I have absolute disdain for the lost opportunity at the 2001 election in Scotland, when many former male Members of this House went to the Scottish Parliament and, with two exceptions, were replaced by men, when there was an ideal opportunity to make places for women.
	I get frustrated about the amount of time that we must spend campaigning on this issue. I do not think that every woman wants to be a Member of Parliament. They are concerned about other issues and it would be good if we did not have to spend so much time dealing with it.
	In conclusion, I mentioned the superwoman that we are all supposed to be in society now. I will treat the House to a part of my speech to the Scottish Labour group's Burns supper, which concerns the superwoman, whose typical day goes like this:
	"She wakes up to her 2.6 children. They go downstairs and she gives them a nutritional breakfast which they eat, and they go off to school without once forgetting their lunch money. She goes upstairs and gets dressed in her £300 suit and goes off to her £100,000 job, which is both creative and socially useful. After work, she comes home and spends a wonderful hour relating to her children—because after all it's not the quantity but the quality of time that's important. She then prepares a gourmet dinner for her husband. They spend some time working on their meaningful relationship, after which they go upstairs where she has multiple orgasms until midnight."
	I did not make that up—it was written by an American woman writer.
	I prefer the words of Elaine C. Smith, a famous Scottish actress. Referring to the women curlers' success recently in winning a gold medal, she said:
	"only Scottish women could be expert at brushing round a dead weight."

Hugo Swire: All I can say after the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) is, in the words of the film, "I'll have what she's having!"
	I am almost uniquely unqualified to take part in this debate on women and equality, according to my wife. She says that she will read the debate in Hansard, so I must mind what I say. For years, she has been trying to get me to read "The Female Eunuch" by Germaine Greer, and a book that is apparently called, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". I have read neither of those books, so I cannot argue about what they might contribute to my greater understanding of the problem.
	We have heard some interesting things in the debate, although I will temper what I am about to say by pointing out that when men speak on a matter that is so predominantly a woman's issue we can occasionally stray between humbug, cliché, condescension and being politically correct. There has been a fair amount of those in equal measure this afternoon.
	I am mindful of the time and that others wish to speak, but must refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who is no longer present, said about his Bill. I understood—it was a misunderstanding—that the legislation would mean that male-only private clubs would have to admit women, and vice versa. I understand now that that is not the case. The Bill deals with clubs that allow in both sexes and would ensure that they were treated equally. That came as something of a disappointment to me, as for quite a while I have been trying to gain access to Sanctuary—the all-women health club and spa. Joking apart, as the new president of the council of western Conservative clubs, which consists of 160 affiliated Conservative clubs in the west country, I assure my hon. Friend—or I would if he were in his place—that I shall ensure that there is equal treatment of both genders in those clubs, if that is within my remit.
	Recently, I served with great interest on the Tax Credits Bill Standing Committee. Many of the arguments that we have heard this afternoon were rehearsed during the passage of that Bill—the working families tax credit, the replacement value of women and so on. As we know, many women are trapped at home with their children—as my wife is. The other day a poll showed men's assessment of the replacement value of their wives. It was a pathetically small amount—about £6,000 a year—although we all know that the real amount is well in excess of £60,000. For too long, some men—I hope I am not of their number—have taken for granted the enormous amount of work that women undertake in the home, bringing up children.
	The Secretary of State referred to the work-family balance, which will be of increasing importance as we have more leisure time, greater flexibility in the workplace and more job sharing. However, I am concerned that the measures that are slowly being introduced will increase the general burden on small businesses through additional costs. We should bear that in mind.
	I shall talk later about retirement and pensions, but I want briefly to refer to women in senior executive positions, where their numbers are woefully inadequate. Women in such positions are held up as the exception when they should be the norm.
	I am surprised that we have not spent more time talking about education this afternoon, although if there is inequality in education, it affects males rather than females. Given that a larger proportion of women enter the teaching profession, the educational results are interesting. For example, in their last year of compulsory education, 55 per cent. of girls but only 44 per cent. of boys gain five or more A to C grades, or standard grades 1 to 3 at SCE—Scottish Certificate of Education.
	We should debate the shortage of men in the teaching profession. It is argued that males underperform, especially in primary school, owing to the lack of men in the profession. I do not know whether that is true. I prefer the view of Chris Woodhead, the former head of Ofsted:
	"What we need are teachers in primary schools who can teach, which means . . . keeping order. I can remember some women teachers who are remarkably good at keeping order . . . and there are plenty of men who aren't."
	I wholeheartedly agree with that: teachers can be good or bad—regardless of sex. We should consider what we can learn from the fact that girls perform better in school.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) pointed out that we fail girls as regards sex education in schools. We should teach them about the loneliness of being single mothers—so that they do not end up feeling as lonely as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who is the lone representative of her party here this afternoon.
	As we have heard, women often suffer because they have to dip in and out of work. They need greater flexibility so that they can re-enter the work force after they have children. There is no doubt that, in the past, they were penalised for that. I hope that current and future legislation will recognise that. To some extent it has done so already.
	We should also consider the type of work that women actually get. Too often, they are trapped in traditionally low-paid jobs in care homes—that is especially true in my constituency—or as shelf stackers. We have already heard about nurses. Women work as social workers, cleaners and so on. That is a very real problem.
	I want to touch on a subject that I know my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) wants to speak about later: the equality of women in the armed forces. I was in the armed forces, and I think that women play an increasingly important role in them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster that they should be there on their own merit, and there should be no dumbing down. We should certainly have extremely strong reservations about allowing women to operate on the front line in some areas of combat.

Eric Joyce: It was perhaps a bit daft to use the phrase "dumbing down". When tests were introduced to see whether women were suitable for the new occupations within the armed services, some of the men failed the tests that they would need to pass to join the teams, especially in the Royal Artillery, where they would have to lift heavy equipment. It was the teams, not the individuals that did the tasks. It is not a case of dumbing down or lowering standards.

Hugo Swire: In the interests of gender solidarity, I will accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. I meant no disrespect to women who are in or who want to join the armed forces. In fact, I said exactly the reverse: that no allowances should be made, because both men's and women's lives can be at risk in combat.
	I come from a fairly liberal arts background; I genuinely believe that being a woman has never been a hindrance. In fact, the boss at the last company I worked for was a woman. I will not talk about her now—she is involved in a rather high-profile court case in New York.
	It is interesting to see how women are emerging in the arts. Historically, the great classical musicians were men, but now the great pop musicians, who are perhaps replacing them—the girl bands and icons for the young such as Madonna and Kylie Minogue—are women. None of the impressionists and very few portraitists in the 18th and 19th centuries were female, but now there is thriving participation of women and some of our best contemporary artists are female. Women occupy many of the most important posts in arts administration, too.
	In literature, we had the Brontë sisters and Jane Austen, and now we have A. S. Byatt, P. D. James, and of course J. K. Rowling—all icons in their own way to women in the workplace.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has not mentioned sport. He may be interested to know that the trainer of the winner of the Cheltenham gold cup this afternoon is a woman, Henrietta Knight, who lives quite near my constituency in Oxfordshire. In many such fields, women are beating men at their own game.

Hugo Swire: I have met that trainer and I hope that my hon. Friend has profited personally from his close association with her this afternoon. Let us not forget the women's curling team who had such success at the recent winter Olympics: shining icons to all women who may want to take up that sport.
	Our actresses are, I would suggest, way ahead of our actors. Younger women need role models, but not enough women are at the top of their professions, apart from those I have mentioned.
	I mentioned earlier the excellent woman leader of the Conservative group on Devon county council, and Conservative-controlled East Devon council also has an excellent woman leader, but there is no doubt that there are not enough women in politics. I recently entertained two Members of the Youth Parliament, both of whom were girls from Exmouth, and they were pretty unimpressed by what they saw here. They thought that we had very little relevance to their everyday lives, particularly, I suspect, because there were very few women role models on whom they could base their ambitions.
	I am against all-women shortlists. I recognise that we have a problem in our society and that we must address it. I know that we will address it, and I welcome that. However, there are ways of achieving that other than all-women shortlists. I very much hope to welcome, after the next general election, at least another 150 female Conservative colleagues.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to contribute to our debate; I am glad that it has been restored after a lapse of a few years. It is important to celebrate women's hard work in countries all over the world; international women's day provides an opportunity to do so, and I am pleased that we are having a debate on women and equality.
	The Government have made considerable improvements in the position of women. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women listed many achievements, including the minimum wage, the record rise in child benefit, the extension of maternity leave and the introduction of parental leave. The Government have put the work-life balance on the political agenda for the first time and given it tremendous prominence in their planning; I applaud their achievement. I am particularly glad that they have promoted and encouraged breastfeeding, as it has known health benefits for women and babies, both here and in other countries, where many babies die because they are not breast-fed.
	We have made progress in the House and the country at large in recognising the importance of breastfeeding, but there is still a long way to go before it becomes culturally acceptable, both here and among the wider public, and people are open and relaxed about it. That is essential if we are to encourage young women to breastfeed and not discriminate against working women who breastfeed, as European Union and health and safety regulations recommend. I hope that we can have a fuller debate on the subject in future.
	My right hon. Friend referred to the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, the success of which we are all celebrating today. I am sure that it will mean that eventually, on the Labour Benches, there will be equal numbers of men and women MPs. As hon. Members know, the Act is permissive, so it is up to political parties to use the power that it provides. In an intervention, I said that at the Welsh Labour party conference at Llandudno next week, we will vote on whether to introduce all-women shortlists for a number of vacant seats in next year's elections to the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend confirmed that that will be the first action taken by a political party under the Act. I look forward to the conference, where I shall strongly support the motion to introduce all-women shortlists; I am hopeful of its success.
	The Assembly has already got a high number of women; 41 per cent. of its Members are women, which is the second highest percentage in European legislatures. It is important to maintain those numbers and the mechanism of all-women shortlists, if approved by the conference, will enable us to do so. I shall therefore support the motion, and the Government should be congratulated on enabling it to be introduced.
	It is easy to establish new arrangements in new institutions; when the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were set up, it was easy to introduce good practices such as twinning mechanisms. Those mechanisms are much more difficult to introduce in an establishment such as the Westminster Parliament, which has been in existence for a long time. The Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a section on equal opportunities, which places a statutory duty on the Welsh Assembly to
	"make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
	I should like to pay tribute again to the hard work of Val Feld, an Assembly Member who died last year; she made an enormous effort to ensure, when director of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Wales, that such a section was in the Act.
	In the United Kingdom, that clause has a unique scope, covering all the Assembly's functions, including economic development, planning, education and social services. It also applies to everybody in Wales for whom the Assembly provides a service. It is a very important clause. The Assembly's Standing Committee on Equality of Opportunity was set up to ensure that that duty is adhered to. It publishes a report each year, which also deals with how the Assembly runs its business in relation to equal opportunities.
	I call on the Government to consider introducing a statutory equality duty. That would help focus our attention on improving equal opportunities in the services that we as a Government provide. We should also create an equal opportunities Select Committee, which could monitor the work of the different Departments and press for the advancement of equal opportunities issues in the House. The section in the Government of Wales Act to which I referred is unique, and we would benefit by extending such a duty to this House.
	It is probably easier for a body such as the Assembly—it is responsible for only 3 million people and has only 60 Members—to work in the cross-cutting way in which one must work to achieve equal opportunities. It is worth putting on the record some of the things that the Assembly has already achieved. It has introduced mandatory equal opportunities training for all its 3,500 staff, which is a big step forward. As a councillor, I found it extremely difficult to introduce such training for all council staff.
	As a result of changes in recruitment practice, internal civil service recruitment will be replaced by open public recruitment for advertised posts. Independent research into the Assembly's achievements in its fairly short life has acknowledged the fact that modest progress has been made. Such progress has been attributed to the statutory duty that informs everything that the Assembly does. I ask the Minister to comment on whether such a statutory duty could be introduced in Westminster, along with an equal opportunities Select Committee.
	I want to refer briefly to the pay gap, which has been discussed at length today. The Assembly is trying to tackle the pay gap, together with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC. I worked closely with those organisations on equal opportunity in Wales, and I pay tribute to them. In November last year, the EOC commissioned the first in-depth study of the pay gap in Wales. The study, which was carried out by Swansea university, showed that women's hourly earnings in Wales are 13 per cent. lower than men's. The gap is smaller than the corresponding difference in England because men's pay is lower in Wales.
	For part-time workers, the situation in Wales is even worse, although the same can be said of other regions. The difference in average hourly pay between a woman working part-time and a man working full-time is 36 per cent., although the figure does vary across Wales. There are many reasons for that difference, and many proposals could be introduced to improve the situation, particularly in relation to child care. We in Wales have made considerable progress on child care. Many more places are available, but we need to consider the expense. Research has shown that those extra places are perhaps not accessible to families who are less well-off.
	We must also consider working with organisations to persuade them to examine their practices and the pay gap. Public organisations in particular should review their pay systems, and in that regard the Assembly has taken a lead. It has reviewed its pay systems and established a three-year plan for closing the pay gap. In taking the lead in Wales, it is encouraging other organisations to do the same.
	In Wales, enormous progress has been made and distinct and measurable improvements achieved. There is a long way to go, but with this Government working in collaboration with the Assembly in Wales, we will continue to make tremendous progress and give women their rightful place in society. 6.5 pm

Patrick Mercer: I hope that the hon. Ladies on the Government Benches will forgive the voters of Newark and Retford for taking an equal opportunities approach at the general election and reducing their number by one. I hope that that will not be held against me.
	The other day I was in the village of Elkesley, which is one of the more remote villages between Newark and Retford. I spoke to a young lady who was finishing school and about to take her A-levels. I asked her what she intended to go on to do. She said that she was going to university, where she would be sponsored by her employers. That struck me as very sensible and I asked her who they were. She said they were the Royal Navy. I asked what she intended to do in the Royal Navy. She said that she was hoping to go to Dartford to be commissioned and then to become a seaman officer. I thought that that was marvellous. My service experience started at a time when a very different approach was taken to women. I hope that Miss Shani Dyer has a successful and rewarding career on a completely equal footing with the men of the Royal Navy.
	I was surprised to read this morning in The Times an article entitled "Army gets 'bitch TV' treatment". Hon. Members may not know what bitch television is, but I shall enlighten them. The article states:
	"The team behind both the football drama and Bad Girls, set in a women's prison, are working on Bombshell, a racy spin on life in uniform . . . Shed Productions . . . has secured the co-operation of the MoD for the series, which will make Soldier, Soldier appear staid. Bombshell will show women fighting for equality on the front line and recruits who want their share of sex and drugs."
	Life has changed. What I saw in the armed forces was very different and I hope and trust that things remain the same.
	I was at Sandhurst in 1974 and 1975, with no ladies present at all. They were trained elsewhere—at their own college just up the road. We frequently tried to invade it, without much success. I then joined an infantry battalion on operations in Northern Ireland, again with no women present. By the time I left the Army, female naval ratings were serving at sea on board warships and some 70 per cent. of the jobs in the Army were available to women. The Women's Royal Army Corps had ceased to exist and women were being badged to combat arms, and to all arms of the service, in one of the most sensible, pragmatic and reasonable approaches to equality of employment across the spectrum.
	My first introduction to that approach was when I was picked to be my battalion's intelligence officer in Belfast in 1982. I inherited, much to the envy of my colleagues, a platoon of the Women's Royal Navy Service. Much ribald comment was made about those women, but in the difficult, cramped and dangerous conditions of Belfast in the 1980s they proved to be more than equal to the task. I hope that it will not sound patronising—it is not meant to—if I say that those women had a particular gift for picking up intelligence matter, processing it and coming up with conclusions that men would not have the eye for detail to produce. It was also reassuring to be driven in plain clothes in a civilian car by an armed and dangerous Wren, who—I hope—gave the opposition every impression of normal life. I am not sure that that was always the case.
	Let us consider the example of foreign armies. The Israelis have long had an integrated policy for their women soldiers, sailors and airmen. It has not worked in their combat arms. The Serbs, whom I have seen at close quarters several times in the past few years, had women soldiers in the front line, acting as signallers, drivers and couriers. They often worked behind enemy lines but not actually in the firing line. I suppose that female suicide bombers are an example of total equal opportunities. There is no form of more dangerous combat activity and, mercifully, it is unlikely to happen in this country.
	It is interesting to see how women have been absorbed into the Army. Most of the combat arms accept women—the Royal Signallers, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery. I come back to a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce)—that the Royal Artillery has been particularly successful. No soldiers are further forward on the battle line than the Royal Artillery. Women in the Royal Artillery serve right up at the front in forward observation units, but not necessarily on the gun line. I shall return to that in a moment, and some Labour Members may want to comment on that point. Women are also in the Army Air Corps flying combat helicopters.
	I draw the House's attention to one category of women who give the lie to many of the armed forces' policies. Although to the best of my knowledge there are no women in the Special Air Service, there are certainly women serving on special duties. Without going into details, those special duties are restricted entirely to operations in Northern Ireland and in similar theatres elsewhere. A very small number of those women, who are committed on a daily basis to combat duties, have been in action and have been decorated for their gallantry by the Queen. However, I emphasise that they are a very small number of women and a very special group. It is therefore probably right that units such as the infantry and the Royal Armoured Corps do not accept women into their ranks.
	I was visited by representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission when I was serving with a Warrior battalion—an armoured personnel carrier- equipped battalion. The commission representatives were allowed to sit in the back of a Warrior during nuclear, biological and chemical warfare training. The vehicle was closed down in total darkness and there was no movement outside the vehicle for as long as the attack lasted. After a couple of hours, two of the lady members of the team said, "We'd like to go to the loo, please." The answer was, "Please carry on." The ladies reached to get out of the vehicle, which, clearly, they could not do in those conditions. They replied, "Sorry, we don't understand." They were then told, "There's a chemical lavatory in the back of the vehicle." There were seven bodies in the back of that vehicle, two of whom were women. One can imagine that seven hairy infantrymen carrying out nature's functions would be unpleasant enough—I dare say that if the whole crew had been female it would have been pleasant enough—but those ladies blanched and never returned to the question of women trying to serve in infantry units. I would make exactly the same points about tank crews and other armoured vehicle crews. There are simple, straightforward limits.
	I was involved in gender-free testing while I was still serving, and I think that a Labour Member was also involved. There is a tendency in the Army to be concerned that women will work their wiles and end up in the Parachute Regiment, in the Royal Marines or manning a general purpose machine gun. We heard earlier about the test to lift a Royal Artillery shell for an AS90 self-propelled gun. That test is almost impossible to achieve—possible but difficult—for a very fit and well-trained man. It was designed to keep women away from the gun line.
	The Army employs a full colonel on a salary of more than £60,000 a year to make sure that these issues are properly considered and properly treated. My experience—and possibly that of other hon. Members—is that women do not want to serve in those capacities. Very few women wish to be in the infantry, although some do. Very few women want to become paratroopers, although some do. The armed forces are guilty of being terribly narrow minded about an issue that is not an issue.
	We have seen women taking their right and proper place in the armed forces—well forward, doing tremendous jobs and bearing the brunt of operations at home and abroad. I suggest that we should honour them for that, treat them with total equality and understand that they serve just as properly and just as gallantly as men.

Laura Moffatt: It always shocks me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to realise that only 252 of the 4,500 Members of Parliament elected since 1918 have been women.
	I have listened with interest to the debate and to the comments made by my sisters and colleagues on the Labour Benches, and by other hon. Members. I am never ashamed of using the word "sisters", because that is what we are. We celebrate the fact that we are women taking part in a process that we hope makes a difference for women outside the House.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that the Conservative party would support all-women shortlists in an attempt to get more women into Parliament, but I could see the expressions on the faces of her—mostly male—colleagues behind her. I have a strange feeling that some of them will not share my celebrations at the announcement.

Andrew Selous: I think that the hon. Lady may be mistaken. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to say that the Conservative party would look carefully at its selection process, to ensure that women have the best possible chances. I do not believe that we have endorsed all-women shortlists.

Laura Moffatt: What a surprise. I think that we will let that statement lie on the Floor of the House.
	Last weekend, many hon. Members will, like me, have celebrated international women's day and mothering Sunday with women in their communities. We got into the roots of our communities, and found out the difficulties and needs of women there. I attended my community centre to enjoy the celebrations, to send cards and chocolate, and to talk about what it means to be a women under a Labour Government. The women to whom I spoke were very pleased about much of what has been done. For example, the working families tax credit has transformed my neighbourhood, and the child care element of the credit has done an enormous amount for women in the south-east.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise the lower limit to allow more women access to child care. That will get them where they want to be—out in the work place, where they can make their way in the world, while their children get the first-class care that they enjoy so much. Women Members of Parliament must represent women and ensure that women's needs are brought to the fore. I have no doubt that lots of male hon. Members will co-operate and support us.
	I have never been ashamed of the fact that I was selected through an all-women shortlist. I am proud of that because men dominate my constituency Labour party, and they were the ones who voted for an all-women shortlist. They wanted to be part of what happened in 1997 in this House, and to be able to say that they had assisted women to increase female representation here. I salute them for that, and for the fact that they stuck by the decision. People must not think that women feel like second-class Members of Parliament, because we certainly do not.
	Women continue to face problems, such as with the Child Support Agency. We are beginning to put things right, but the list of difficulties remains long. Many of them have been dealt with well in today's debate, but I want to turn to international matters. It is easy to talk about great international affairs, such as the catastrophe in Afghanistan, but we must remember that, in recent history, women used to be able to be elected to the Parliament there. Such women are supported by women in this Parliament, particularly on this side of the House. It is important that we bring those issues to the fore.
	We have talked about a woman in Nigeria who is to undergo a stoning. We hope that the practice is in abeyance, but as an international issue, it is still much to the fore. Women's greatest difficulties arise when there is no news for them, and when things are happening off the radar screen of Members of Parliament. That is why I want to say something about the work of the National Council of the Resistance of Iran. Its women's committee has worked tirelessly, and many hon. Members will have been approached by it. Its work is difficult because there is never anything different to say; they just have to keep ploughing on, trying to get our support and bringing to our attention all the difficulties that women experience in Iran today.
	We have talked about one Nigerian woman, and that is bad enough, but since that case, four women in Iran have died from stoning. We have said and done nothing about that. That is why it is so important that the women's committee works tirelessly with us. Today, a very successful event in the House of Commons tried to bring those issues to the fore on the front burner. We must understand that in Iran executions continue in their thousands, as do public floggings, which can be meted out just because a woman is not wearing her head-dress properly or behaving as a good Muslim woman should.
	We have been talking about equality. Let us take an example of inequality in Iran. Men who have been condemned to death by stoning are buried up to their waist first, and there is a small chance of them escaping. When women are stoned to death, they are buried up to their armpits so that their breasts are not damaged, but of course they have no chance of escaping that terrible death. These are the issues that we need to bring to the attention of all Parliaments in the world.
	Suicide is an enormous issue in Iran. Many women kill themselves because they have few or no opportunities. Many are educated, and some can take advantage of their education, but 64 per cent. of women with a degree cannot use it in any way to assist their country. Ensuring that women can play their part is not simply about soft, equality issues; it is about hard economics, health and educating our children.
	This is probably the most important thing that we will ever discuss, and I sincerely hope that we continue to hold this debate in future years. It is important that we are able to raise these issues and take them forward. I am glad that we can celebrate improvements for women and press for further gains. We must make sure that we make life better for women around the world.

Andrew Selous: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not only on behalf of all my women constituents but, from a personal point of view, because I have three young daughters. I want them to grow up in a world where they have every possible opportunity to fulfil all their potential in whatever way they choose. It is absolutely right that they should have equal opportunities in employment, and it is worrying to learn of the gender gap in pay.
	I was particularly struck by the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of new graduates entering employment. Even at that early stage, before female graduates have taken on any family responsibilities, there is already a gender pay gap. That is unacceptable. I hope that it will increasingly be phased out as employers realise that it is not acceptable at the start of the 21st century.
	I pay tribute to various prominent female members of my community. There are notably three who have an especially distinguished record in local government. Councillor Mary Biswell is the mayor of Dunstable. She has a distinguished record, notably in raising money for charity, for many good causes.
	Councillor Pat Staples is the chairman of South Bedfordshire district council. She, too, is an extremely hard-working community councillor, and well loved throughout the district. Finally, there is Councillor Angela Roberts, the deputy leader of Bedfordshire county council. She is an inspiration to all her colleagues on the council. These women are valued and prominent members of my local community who contribute wholeheartedly to local government throughout Bedfordshire.
	I listened carefully to the way in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry introduced the debate. I am pleased that I largely agreed with many of her points. I listened carefully when she talked about what women wanted. I am pleased that she said that it was not for the Government to dictate to or impose a particular lifestyle on women, or men.
	It is important that we have a genuine respect for the choices that women make at different stages of their lives and careers. I want a level playing field, so that there is real choice for women when they consider having children in terms of going to work and returning to work.
	I commend to the House the considerable work of Dr. Catherine Hakim, who is a senior research fellow in sociology at the London school of economics. Her conclusions are that women split into three broad categories, which are roughly as follows.
	About 20 per cent. of women prefer to have a largely home-centred lifestyle. That is where they are fulfilled. They choose to do that, and should be supported and encouraged in that important work.
	About another 20 per cent. of women wish to have an entirely work-centred lifestyle. They will commit themselves entirely to a career. Often they will stay with one employer for a long time and not enter into responsibilities as a parent.
	The vast majority of women—the remaining 60 per cent.—are what Dr. Hakim described as having an "adaptive preference". They will want to go between the worlds of home and work at various stages in their career. It is important that we bear that in mind. We should not think that there is only one model for women in the work force.
	These findings from the academic world were born out by a survey in 2001 that was undertaken by the magazine Top Sante, which consulted many young women which I shall quote briefly. It found that only 4 per cent. of working women with a baby or young child would choose, if they had the choice, to work full-time. Thirty-one per cent. of respondents said that they would prefer to have a part-time career job share. Twenty-two per cent. said that they would prefer to work from home or set up their own business.
	Significantly, 43 per cent. of respondents said that they would like to be full-time mums, if they had the opportunity. Commenting on the survey, Juliette Kellow, the editor of Top Sante, said:
	"The Government wants to encourage as many women as possible into full-time work, but this is blatantly not what most women want, especially those with families. Working full time for most women with families is a major problem, physically, emotionally and mentally. This survey shows that it is also extremely damaging to family life and relationships."
	I do not think that it is up to Members of Parliament or the Government to be prescriptive about how women choose to balance their responsibilities, but it is important that we bear in mind the vast range of choices and personal preferences.
	I have a worry with regard to the European dimension. I am concerned that the European Commission is concentrating only on the full-time employment model in respect of women. There is evidence that Allan Larsson, a former director general of Directorate-General V, has pushed the European Commission in that direction. On a recent visit to Brussels with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, I was concerned that the overwhelming preference seemed to be to increase women's participation in the work force. Various targets were set out in that regard, but it did not seem that sufficient account was taken of different choices.
	Returning to the situation at home, I have a concern about the child care tax credit, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). Although I welcome the introduction of the tax credit and the Government's underlying intention, two specific concerns have still not been addressed. First, two-parent single-earner families are excluded, so there is an implied reduction of the significance of parents who choose to stay at home and look after their children. Secondly, the credit is awarded only for registered child care outside the home, but we know that vast numbers of people prefer informal child care arrangements. About 44 per cent. of manual workers with children have some grandparent involvement and many others are happy for friends or family—often sisters and aunts—to be involved in looking after their children in their own homes, but such care is outside the scope of the child care tax credit. I ask the Minister to consider again whether something could be done to extend the scope of a measure that is generally good.
	Internationally, it is interesting to see how different European countries have handled such measures. For example, Finland has a home care allowance that is paid to some 75 per cent. of women who have children under three, paying up to 40 per cent. of the average wage. The allowance gives women real choice in the early years of their children's lives about whether they want to stay at home to look after them or go out to work. In Norway, the same system is in place for all women with children under two. France has the allocation parental d'education, which is paid after the birth of the second child until that child is three. So three major European industrial countries are taking an approach that is significantly different from that of the UK to the care of children in their early years in terms of giving women a choice.
	When we consider the difference between tax systems in Europe, we see that in Germany, there is a much greater emphasis on transferable tax allowances. There is evidence that many women appreciate that approach as it gives them a greater choice when children come along. The additional tax allowances in Germany provide support for families in the early years of children's lives, which is much appreciated. France has income splitting—a recognition of how many mouths one salary has to feed. Evidence from France shows that that scheme is viewed by women as a significant recognition of their right to have a choice.
	We have heard much about how child care is important in giving women the ability to enter the work force. I should like women who do not choose to use child care to have the benefit of longer career breaks so that when they return to work after having looked after their children for a number of years they can get back into the stride of their careers. Retraining will obviously be an important part of that. I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) introduced the family scholarship scheme in the last Parliament to help with the retraining of women coming back into the labour force after having taken time out to look after children or elderly or dependent relatives.
	We have heard that the poorest pensioners are often the oldest ones—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Linda Perham: I realised what a long way women still had to go to achieve equality during the year that I was the first woman Labour mayor of my borough of Redbridge. Not only was it often assumed that I was the mayoress, but at a function arranged by a national charity, the president asked me what a housewife like me was doing being a mayor. I spluttered something about being a professional person, to which he asked what a professional housewife like me was doing being a mayor.
	That leads me to the outstanding work of women in their local communities, particularly in local government, which formed part of my route to this place. Women are high achievers on their local councils and good examples in their local communities. I particularly want to pay tribute to Councillor Liz Pearce, who, regrettably, is standing down in May. She was the first woman leader of the Labour group and of the council, at a time when her sons were two and four years old, so she had a lot to cope with. I pay tribute to her tireless work for the people of the borough during her time on the council.
	We need more women councillors. My own authority has managed to achieve only a fifth of its membership being female as far back as I can remember and we need to bring more women into local government.
	The contribution of women to the wider community through voluntary organisations is also worthy of recognition and celebration. Through work that I did on behalf of the National Childbirth Trust I became a member of the Redbridge community health council, where I met Eileen Gordon, the former Member of Parliament for Romford, who represented her CHC in Havering. She did outstanding work on health issues, which she continued through her work on the Select Committee on Health.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Linda Perham: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	During my involvement with local community issues I have never ceased to support the work of women locally as magistrates, school governors and chairs of strategic health authorities. They make up about half their appointees, but that is not enough.
	I want briefly to mention the Women's library which took over from the Fawcett library. I worked there for many years. It has just moved into splendid premises opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the end of January. I recommend a visit to see the exhibition "Cooks and Campaigners", which has items selected by prominent women in public life, including Cherie Booth, Kate Adie, Mary Quant and others.
	I am pleased that the Government support the aim of 45 to 50 per cent. of public appointments made by central Government being filled by women by the end of 2005.
	Others have spoken about the Government's achievements. In particular I pay tribute to the Government for introducing the national minimum wage. I also commend my union, Unison, on its campaign on equal pay for women and its championing of public services. However, I am disappointed that the Government will not introduce the EU directive on equal treatment in employment until 2006. My hon. Friend the Minister knows my views on that, and she has addressed the all-party group on ageing and older people.
	I should like briefly to mention Redbridge women's day, which took place last Saturday and was addressed by the Minister for Lifelong Learning. Last year, we were addressed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It was an interesting day, with a laughter therapy session and a tea bar run by men, and it was attended by more than 100 women.
	I finish where I started—by praising the work of women in local communities. Some want to remain as carers; some want to go on to local, national and international politics. Much work is needed to improve women's lives. The debate is well timed in the week following international women's day, but it is not only on that day, or during this week, that we should acknowledge, celebrate and shout about women's achievements—we should do it every day.

Cheryl Gillan: I am glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) was able to speak in this excellent debate, to which 12 Members, apart from the Front-Bench spokesmen, contributed. For the Minister for Women and me the debate is a case of deja vu—certainly, I feel as if I have been here before.
	Many good things were said in the debate, but sadly many good things were unsaid because we did not have enough time. I hope that the Minister agrees that next time the debate should take place not only in Government time, but on a day when there are not three statements and we can do justice to the contributions of all hon. Members who wish to take part. I know that that is beyond the right hon. Lady's remit, but she will appreciate that I am making the point on her behalf through the usual channels and to the powers that be that we should, at least on one day of the year, have a decent chance of a proper debate.
	The Minister opened the debate extremely well with some fine examples from her constituency. If I had the luxury of more time, I would do the same. She took us on a trip down memory lane to the 1950s. I cannot say that I can join her there, but I knew what she meant.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who had to leave the Chamber to look after her child before attending functions tonight, would have wanted, like me, to say that the Minister was uncharitable in failing to acknowledge anything that the Conservative party did for women when it was in government. A Conservative Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1983 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, and I am proud that a Conservative Government introduced independent taxation. I hoped that the Minister would be charitable enough to acknowledge that the Conservative party is as eager as she is to attain equality—certainly, equality of opportunity—for women, even if we do not always go about it in the same way.
	I am disappointed that in the 45 minutes that the Minister took to make her speech, much of which I agreed with, she spent so much time on the domestic situation and did not deal more with the position of women in other countries. There is a commonality of feeling in the House that although there are furrows to plough as regards equality in this country, true inequality exists in other countries, and we as women must pay attention to that. That is why I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) praised the non-governmental organisations and women's organisations that help us in our work here and assist women throughout the world. She gave a well rounded speech that concentrated on issues in the United Kingdom and the problems of women in the developing world.
	My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who spoke up well for women auxiliary workers. I agree with her on that subject. She asked for more help from the Government—I hope that the Minister will respond to her request—and made some good points on encouraging companies to give women opportunities for training and promotion. She also made some interesting points on drug testing and women's health. I was surprised to hear what she was saying and I hope that the Minister will have time to comment on it. I shall understand if she does not have time to comment on all the points that have been made, in which case I hope that she will respond in writing.
	The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) gave a solo performance from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. She was disappointed in the lack of support from her party—as were we. We were not fooled by the stage-managed appearance of a supporting cast throughout her speech.
	I am sorry that I left the Chamber momentarily and did not hear the full speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I have great admiration for the work that she has done on arranged marriages. Her views on that are shared across the House. I have discussed the matter with my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, and if the hon. Lady introduces an early-day motion on the Nigerian case that she mentioned, we would be pleased to look at it and join her in signing it if it is suitable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) discussed his Bill and a Bill in another place. He raised the subject of labour clubs, which seem to be a source of annoyance to some Labour Members. The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) brought up the heady issue of trafficking of women and children and the sobering facts on violence against women. She looked at the subject of reproductive health in a way that we should not forget affects all of us. Female genital mutilation is still one of the most abhorrent practices in the world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a refreshing contribution. She talked realistically and highlighted the fundamental difference between men and women. She had a useful gender-blind suggestion for our problem of all-women shortlists and brought to the forefront the issues on unmarried pregnancies. We share views on that subject across the Chamber, as we all see in our surgeries single mothers who are left literally holding the baby. My hon. Friend talks common sense and echoes the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The hon. Member for Ayr (Sandra Osborne) was a brief voice from Scotland in this international women's day debate. She is a superwoman, and she apologised for having to leave for a flight to Scotland. Her speech was followed by that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). We appreciated his undertakings to look into the operation of the Conservative clubs that are within his bailiwick. He made some interesting points on education and bemoaned the shortage of men in the teaching profession and the underperformance of boys in the education system. That, too, concerns us all.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) was our voice from Wales. She spoke about the advantages of equal opportunities in Wales. I was interested to hear her suggestion about an equal opportunities Select Committee and I hope that the Minister will have time to touch on that. I am not entirely sure whether I agree with the hon. Lady, but it is certainly an interesting idea which we can explore.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) gave us a brief insight into the benefits of women in the armed services. I have seen at first hand the benefits of women in the armed services, in both Kosovo and Kuwait. When I was in Kuwait looking at our Tornado squadron, it was with great happiness, pride and surprise that I saw that the head of engineering was a blonde—and a blonde woman at that. She had the men firmly under control but, more importantly, she was the best engineer for that job. We can all be proud of that.
	I am afraid that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) got the views of Conservative Front-Bench Members wrong, but it was nice to hear her being so supportive of those who elected her. We are all supportive of our constituents who send us here; it is a great privilege to be in this place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) picked out some distinguished local women and made some key points on taxation. I make no apology for reminding the House that independent taxation was introduced by a Conservative Government.
	I really do not have time to go through my speech because I want to give the Minister time to reply. Let me return briefly to our domestic scene. I remind the Government that they have no reason for complacency or satisfaction from any achievements that they may have made to date, because where the public services are letting people down, women are being disproportionately affected.
	Women do most of the caring in this country, and when care homes close and the health service underperforms, it is the women who are affected. Today, when the teachers are striking, it will be the women who have had to look after the children. Our police were out on the street yesterday, and it is the women who are worried about the safety of their communities. As women live longer, there is no doubt that the disaster in the pension fund will affect them disproportionately. The failure of this Government on public services will affect us all, and deliver enduring inequality, unless the Government put these things right.
	I shall close by agreeing with a Labour Minister, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, who said recently:
	"Voters felt that the quality of their lives was awful and nothing had changed since Labour came to office."
	I certainly agree with the hon. Lady when she said that voters—traditional supporters of the Labour party—felt let down and ignored. We agree that we want equal opportunities for women, and that we want to see women succeed. I agree with the Minister for Lifelong Learning that this Labour Government should, and must, do better. 6.51 pm

Barbara Roche: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). We have crossed swords on a number of occasions, and it is good to be opposite her again today. I want to say to her—in the gentlest possible way, of course—that I do not remember there being any debates on these issues in Government time during the Conservative years.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady is mistaken. I led a debate held on international women's day, in Government time, when I was the Minister for Women.

Barbara Roche: Very many congratulations to the hon. Lady. Of course, if that is the case, I can only congratulate her on holding such a debate once in 18 years. Absolutely fantastic! What a wonderful achievement.
	A number of themes have run through the debate today, and I shall try to deal with them as quickly as I can. I apologise if I do not get to every point that was raised. The gender pay gap was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the hon. Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). As part of my research, I have been looking to the past to see how far back the gender pay gap goes. In fact, I turned to Leviticus—the Old Testament is compulsory reading for me—in which Moses was told that a man of working age was worth 50 silver shekels, while a woman was worth only 30. So the gap goes right back to the beginning.
	The hon. Member for Meriden was right to concentrate on the international issues. She put them into context well; it is important to talk about the work that has been undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Meriden and for East Devon (Mr. Swire), spoke about the dangers of placing new burdens on employers as a result of the Employment Bill. Our economy needs an increasingly high level of labour participation, involving both men and women. About one third of new mothers do not return to work. If just 10 per cent. of those mothers changed their mind as a result of the provisions in the Employment Bill, the total benefit to employers, through reduced recruitment costs, could be as much as £30 million. Of course, these measures are about social justice, but they are also about productivity and the health of our economy.
	The hon. Member for Meriden and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) rightly spoke of the evils of trafficking, particularly trafficking of women and children. I take a great interest in that subject, and the United Kingdom is at the forefront of efforts to tackle the problem. We were one of the first countries to sign the United Nations protocol on the prevention and suppression of trafficking. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of signing it myself. We ought to encourage as many countries as possible to sign, and to act against this evil trade.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for all her work in relation to forced marriages. What the Government are now doing reflects the strength of her campaign.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke of the international dimension, referring to Afghanistan and other countries. We are very encouraged by the involvement of women in the Afghan Interim Administration. Many Members mentioned the past role of women in the highest ranks of Government in Afghanistan, and we should bear that in mind.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to career opportunities in public service for such people as teaching assistants and auxiliaries. We are committed to considering how we can further such opportunities. My excellent officials in the women and equality unit have produced a document called "Better Services, Better Working Lives", which gives practical advice in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned public appointments, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I am conducting a series of regional seminars on the subject. We are working towards 50:50, and we expect women to hold 45 to 50 per cent. of jobs sponsored by most Departments by 2005. We have a great deal of work to do, but the House should be left in no doubt about our commitment to the eventual achievement of 50:50—and I should like to achieve it sooner rather than later.

Eric Joyce: Do not women from ethnic minority backgrounds suffer from double discrimination? When considering the position of women in public life, should we not take account of both those dimensions?

Barbara Roche: Absolutely. That is why we have been directing some of our efforts towards black and other ethnic minority women. I have had an excellent meeting with a number of such women, who hold some local public appointments but would like national careers.

Dari Taylor: Will the Minister say something about blue collar work? Women in blue collar employment, including middle class women, often feel very excluded.

Barbara Roche: I agree. We should ensure that there is a cross-section.
	I accept the apology given by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), but may I correct him in one respect? I did not ask him to withdraw his Bill. We discussed together how it might be handled, as he had said that a member of his party might object to it. We support the Bill in principle, and I was delighted that the House of Lords gave the legislation a Second Reading. I am sure that the business managers will have noted the strength of feeling.
	We have had a very good debate covering a number of issues. I strongly believe that equality is not merely an add-on. It is time for it to become mainstream, as was said by the hon. Member for Romsey. Effective legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of race, age, sexual orientation or belief is absolutely necessary, and we will therefore be implementing directives on race and employment.
	If we want a modern Britain that is inclusive, we must have diversity. That is why equality is so important for social justice and productivity.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

FAIR TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Ann McKechin: I welcome the opportunity to speak about international fair trade, especially as last week I had the honour to host the launch in the House of the annual Fairtrade fortnight. Although the concept of fair trade has been around for some time—and Fairtrade products are a familiar sight in the catering facilities of the House of Commons—it is recognised as crucial to the long sought aim of eradicating world poverty.
	Let me give two quotations to support that argument. Mario Perez, a coffee grower from a Nicaraguan farmers' co-operative, said:
	"Three years ago, we practically had to give away our harvest, we were losing money. We were in debt. But, under Fairtrade, we've paid off all our debts and we are proud".
	Iddi Simba, Tanzania's Trade Minister commented at the World Trade Organisation talks last November on the unfair trading system that allows Governments in the north to continue subsidising their farmers while countries in the south have been forced to dismantle protective measures and open up their markets to cheap northern imports. He said:
	"The wrong policy on agriculture might lose elections in France, but it loses lives in Africa".
	Fairtrade started as a concept 13 years ago with coffee and has developed to include tea, cocoa, sugar, honey, chocolate, mangoes, orange juice and bananas. By re-connecting consumers with producers, it ensures that farmers get a fair price for their crops and the chance of a sustainable future. It provides dignity, not desperation; fair trade rather than exploitation. From humble beginnings in charity shops, it has now entered the mainstream retail trade with a sales growth of 40 per cent. in the last financial year. Fairtrade ground coffee has more than 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom ground coffee market, and the sale of Fairtrade products in the UK benefits at least 120,000 farmers and workers throughout the third world. The staff, business associates and volunteers who support the movement deserve enormous credit for successfully expanding within a competitive market and for providing hope for so many.
	As yet Fairtrade is unfortunately only a small part of the answer, but it highlights the growing gulf between the rich and poor in our international trade systems. For many developing countries, coffee is the second most valuable commodity after oil and the most valuable agricultural commodity in world trade. The final price of a cup of cappuccino in a London coffee shop absorbs the costs of insurance, taxes, transportation, processing, packaging, marketing, storage and much more. However, of the £1.75 that might be charged, the grower will be lucky to receive the equivalent of just 5p.
	Hidden behind that long and complicated journey is the collapse of coffee prices on the world market and the impact of that on both ends of the trade. Between 1994 and the end of 2001, the price of robusta coffee beans, which are used mainly in instant coffee, plummeted from around 180 cents a pound to just 17 cents, a 30-year low. Although it is estimated that the world coffee trade generates $60 billion in revenue, which is double the amount in the 1980s, the producing countries have retained only 10 per cent. of that compared with 30 per cent. in the 1980s. When the world price falls, it is the growers who suffer an immediate reduction in income, yet there has been no noticeable reduction in supermarket prices for coffee in the UK.
	A recent Nestlé report confirmed the sunny trading situation by stating:
	"profits increased . . . and margins improved thanks to favourable commodity prices".
	For many farmers, however, the collapse in prices means that they have failed to recover their production costs for several years running. That has had a devastating impact on an already precarious existence. Some have abandoned their land, and for those who opt to stay at home the lack of labour for crop maintenance reduces the quality and value of the coffee product, further depressing returns. So the vicious circle is complete.
	The price is mainly set in the international coffee exchanges in New York and London, where future contracts are traded. Although the futures market is an important tool to protect traders from price changes and currency movements, the increasing importance of speculation means that the tail now wags the dog. Paper deals make up about 90 per cent. of the coffee trade, while only 10 per cent. is based on the sale of physical coffee.
	The increasing concentration of the market means fewer bigger actors are now able strongly to influence the market. In short, the benefits of the market accrue to the traders in the north, while the costs fall in the main on the producers in the south.
	For small farmers in the third world, the price of beans on our markets is only one of the factors undermining their ability to make a reasonable living. Whereas farmers in the European Union, Japan or north America are beneficiaries of Government subsidy schemes worth around $300 billion a year, developing countries have been forced to dismantle state-controlled agricultural support programmes as conditions of loans from financial and international institutions. To add to that huge imbalance, agricultural imports from the richer countries are often cheaper, because of these subsidies, than the same product grown locally. At one stroke, farmers in developing countries are deprived of the ability to compete effectively in their home or foreign markets.
	Without the means to process or transport the crop to market, limited knowledge of the frequently changing world price and a debt-driven necessity to sell the coffee the moment it is ripe—when prices are at their lowest—small independent farmers find themselves in a very weak negotiating position. With only one major harvest a year, farmers are desperate for cash by the time the crop is ripe, and they are keen to sell at any price they can get.
	Over the past 20 years, more coffee has been grown as countries have been advised to expand production, clear their debts and increase export returns. Private and World Bank incentives exist for new or expanded production, yet existing farmers need better prices or, at the very least, some stability so that they can plan. Alternatively, they could diversify into other crops, but growers are understandably averse to investing in crops for which no clear market exists, especially when it can take several years to generate an income. Coffee, for all its faults, is widely traded, and the local infrastructure exists to market the crop. Most other options are fraught with greater risks for very poor farmers.
	In the past 15 years, the global coffee trade has been radically reshaped. The tearing up of international quota agreements and the advent of Vietnam as a major producer has led to a market awash with coffee. In the face of oversupply, the buyer became king and prices plummeted. Among the manufacturers in the UK, Nestlé and Kraft Jacobs dominate the instant coffee market, taking 50 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively, with the supermarkets' own brands coming a close third.
	Three key developments have created that situation. First, following pressure from the United States Administration to liberalise trade, the international coffee agreement was abandoned in 1989. The pact between the coffee producing and consuming nations had in the past regulated the supply of beans via a quota system to the market, keeping prices relatively stable. Since then, it has been every man and woman for themselves, a situation that penalises the weakest. With little or no resources, poor producers need to sell their crop as soon as possible, just when the price is lowest. All efforts to re-establish price control have failed.
	Secondly, the unprecedented rise of Vietnam as a coffee producer in the world market has turned a difficult situation into a crisis. Government investment and World Bank loans enabled it to triple its output between 1995 and 2000 to become the world's biggest producer of low-quality robusta beans, second only in overall volume to Brazil. Vietnam now accounts for 10 per cent. of total global coffee output.
	Thirdly, encouraged by the World Bank and partner institutions to restructure their economies, producer nations disbanded national coffee policy organisations which had helped to plan production and acted as intermediaries between small farmers and the market. Subsidies for coffee production and agricultural services were reduced and private exporters took on the main role in a trading market. In many instances, taxes on coffee exports were cut. Initially, some farmers received more of the export price for their beans, but such gains soon disappeared as market prices collapsed. Coffee growers, large and small, were left exposed to the vagaries of the international market and its sudden price fluctuations.
	Coffee has appeared to offer hard-pressed Governments a relatively easy means of generating hard currency, but over the past decade production has increased at twice the rate of consumption. Coffee faces competition from other drinks and, despite the recent successes of coffee shops in the United Kingdom, Europe and north America, demand looks unlikely to increase substantially.
	Ultimately, large corporate consumers are the only ones to benefit from that oversupply. Since the 1980s, fewer players have taken a larger share of the business. Four multinational companies that account for 40 per cent. of worldwide retail sales dominate the sales. Similarly, six multinational export firms control 40 per cent. of the world's coffee market.
	Lack of access to credit has become one of the key factors undermining the position of small farmers. Without loans at a low rate of interest, it is impossible for farmers to ensure adequate care of their crops, or to look after their families before the harvest. After harvest, the need to clear punitive debts leads them to sell their crop quickly and prices are at their lowest. Lack of market knowledge and finance conspire to reduce the quantity and quality of the crop. As the biggest traders recognise, without a market that delivers a decent life to producers, they cannot deliver a quality product to the market.
	For farmers to benefit consistently from the sale of coffee, the buyer needs to pay a price that covers the cost of production and allows for investment. For a commercial roaster on the world market trying to compete with other companies paying low prices, offering a higher price is only possible if the consumer is prepared to pay more. So, the idea of a consumer label was born. If consumers wanted to be sure that farmers had received a fair deal for their coffee, they were invited to buy coffee—and later other products—that was guaranteed to meet criteria for terms of trade and price. The Fairtrade mark has been that guarantee.
	Sadly, coffee farmers have now experienced several years of real suffering and hardship. Many are fighting for their survival. The vast majority are peasants in some of the world's poorest countries.
	I take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on their commitment in recent years to consider the social impact of business in developing countries and their own substantial backing for Fairtrade. The Prime Minister's recent visit to Ghana and his statements supporting Fairtrade were an important signal of that.
	Fairtrade is now calling on local authorities throughout the UK to promote its products in their departments and within local communities. A growing list of towns and cities is participating in the project. I hope that the Government will also use their resources to strengthen their support by promoting the concept among their Departments and in their contacts with our society. I am pleased to note that the Minister's Department has arranged a conference later this month to discuss the development of Fairtrade products in the Caribbean islands and the export potential.
	Clearly, it is vital that the Government should also use their influence in multilateral organisations—the European Union, the World Trade Organisation, the International Coffee Organisation, the United Nations conference on trade and development—to promote solutions that involve all the parties.
	It is essential to stress the priority of eradicating poverty in line with the recognised international targets. It is also very important that the impact of the decisions and policies of those organisations is properly assessed to ensure that they act in such a manner as to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest in our world.
	The role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in policy making needs to be reviewed to ensure that it does not run counter to our development objectives. Too often, the implementation of structural adjustment and promotion of new coffee production in producer countries has been pursued without consideration of the costs in-country or elsewhere in the developing world. In particular, where analysis shows that it would exacerbate global oversupply, the Government should challenge investment in new coffee production, whether that originates from the World Bank, international development organisations or multinational companies.
	I ask the Government to encourage the few companies that dominate the trade to take a far more active role in recognising their social responsibilities and to formulate a sustainable response to the problems within the industry. Seeking to stabilise the market and improve returns for farmers is in their own interests, not only as good corporate citizens, but also to ensure the future of good quality supplies. Producer countries also need to work to increase domestic and regional consumption, decreasing their dependency on export sales.
	The ICO, Oxfam and other organisations support plans to restore the balance in supply and demand, including the destruction of 5 per cent. of low quality coffee stocks. That badly needed short-term strategy would need to go hand in hand with compensation payments to farmers and assistance in developing alternative income-generating activities. That could be financed by the World Bank and multinational coffee companies. However, such programmes would require agreement between, and political commitment from, producer countries to ensure the maintenance of supply-control measures.
	I urge the Government in their negotiations with the EU and the WTO to end immediately the escalating tariff systems that allow green coffee beans to enter Europe duty free, but slap tariffs on processed coffee. That prevents major players from adding value to their coffee, leaving them with little choice but to increase exports to balance their trade. Without tariff escalators, coffee producing countries could develop their processing industries. For too long, the countries of the north have hidden behind a wall of protectionism, and their undertakings to tackle that at the WTO conference last year were hardly watertight or reassuring to the countries of the south.
	The Fairtrade Foundation has set a good example to our society of how we should work for a world in which every person, through their work, can sustain their family and community with dignity. The challenge is for the world's nations and the multinational companies to support this cause—not just with words but with action.

Denis MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on initiating the debate and on making a speech of passion and care about such an important issue. Fair trade is an idea whose time has come and it is an area where the individual can make an important difference. My hon. Friend helped to launch the Fairtrade fortnight in the House and she is passionately committed to fair trade products back home in Glasgow.
	It is good that the House takes the issue seriously. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development gave an eloquent reply in a similar Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy).
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited my constituency at Christmas three or four years ago. Clare and I—that is the only time that I shall refer to her by name, as I know she should be given her ministerial title—donned Santa Claus hats and filled a handsome shopping basket with fair trade goods at Tesco. That brought us local publicity and encouraged south Yorkshire shoppers to follow my right hon. Friend's example.
	My private office at the Foreign Office and the cafeterias and stores of the Foreign Office, the House and other public bodies try to buy fair trade products—as many of us do personally. Consumers can make a huge impact.
	As my ministerial responsibilities include many poor parts of the world, however, it is right for me to offer one or two cautionary words. My friends in the United States steel industry—members of the United Steel Workers of America—insist that all they are fighting for at present is fair trade. That means that exports from steel plants in my constituency could drop by as much as half, if the full tariffs are applied. Fair trade for one person may mean the loss of a job for another.
	Supporters of the common agricultural policy in France, associated with the ATTAC organisation, say loudly that they support fair trade. However, the subsidies given to farmers in the north—both in Europe and the United States—amount to more than the total combined gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. Their idea of fair trade would not be that of the African or Latin American peasant, producer or small farmer who wants access to our food markets in Europe or the United States.
	My hon. Friend referred to the problem of coffee, but before I deal with that we need to consider some definitions. People talk about fair trade; they refer to ethical trade, or what Anita Roddick calls "community trade". The Body Shop has perhaps done more than any other franchised chain in the world to put fair trade into practice, with a continuing relationship with producers. The phrase "community trade" comes from Miss Roddick's introduction to a little book called "The No-Nonsense Guide to Fair Trade", published by Verso, which I commend to the House even if I do not agree with all its analysis. It is a further example of how the movement is growing, and we should give as much support and energy to fair trade as we can.
	My hon. Friend spoke about coffee. I have visited Chiapas in Mexico, a traditional coffee-growing area, and spoken to the people who have suffered from the collapse in coffee prices, which has been one of the contributory factors to the Zapatista movement. Again, in Colombia, the absence of good coffee-production mechanisms, defined through good prices, has encouraged peasants to produce other, far more noxious, substances. In Brazil, President Cardoso is concerned about United States protectionism preventing Brazilian agricultural produce from reaching the US market.
	It is not just wicked multinationals or a rigged market that have caused the collapse in coffee prices that is at the real root of the problem. As my hon. Friend said, Vietnam has massively entered the world coffee market in the past decade by growing coffee for export. Vietnam is a very poor country, and it is not for me to say that its peasants do not have the right to enter the world market for coffee, even if that drives down prices for producers in Latin America.
	I am not sure that it can be right for white politicians in the north to tell one group of workers or peasants anywhere in the south—Latin America, Africa or Asia—that they do not have the right to produce for sale, including export, what they feel best able to produce. I would not be happy, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would, if some external body said that international investment could not come to our constituencies, on the grounds that the products or services proposed to be made or offered for sale were already being made or exported from somewhere else. As a constituency Member, representing, like my hon. Friend, a poor part of our nation, I want my constituents to have the jingle of as much money as possible in their pockets, and that means, for them, the lowest possible prices.
	Of course we accept that trade can have cruel side-effects, but the past quarter century of increasingly open trade has produced remarkable results. In 1970, 35 per cent. of all the people in developing countries were considered to be starving. In 1996, the figure had fallen to 18 per cent., and the United Nations expects it to have fallen to 12 per cent. by 2010. That is not far enough or fast enough, and the millennium development goal of halving world poverty by 2015 is an important one, but if we compare where we were 30 years ago with where we are now, we can see that trade has helped to make the world richer.
	Between 1990 and 1999, adult illiteracy rates in low-income countries, for males aged 15 and above, decreased from 35 to 29 per cent., and the percentage for females aged 15 and above decreased from 56 to 48. Again, that is not far enough or fast enough, but without the material benefits that come with open trade, not even those reductions would have been possible.
	In 1970, only 30 per cent. of people in the developing world had access to clean drinking water. Today, about 80 per cent. do. That is why we need to make the case for open trade. Yes, we need fairer trade, but we must not give the final say to the protectionists, the anti-globalisers and those who would restrict trade to the profit of existing groups only. That would only make our world poorer. It is also why the world trade agreement at Doha was important. The new three-year trade round launched at Doha now has a development agenda at its core. If we can succeed, as Doha suggested, in opening up trade in agricultural products and removing subsidies, defeating protectionism, developing countries stand to gain substantial commercial benefits under the negotiating mandate.
	Today, rich countries pay out $1 billion a day to their farmers in agricultural subsidies. Annually, the figure is more than four times all the development assistance that goes to poor nations. Our Government are at the forefront of advocating the need for change; the Prime Minister has spoken eloquently in Latin America and at the Dispatch Box about the need to defeat protectionism and open up trade in different countries. Markets will be opened up, as was said at Doha,
	"with a view to phasing all forms of export subsidies"
	and trade-distorting domestic farm support.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill spoke about the increasing trade in processed foods; it is not raw materials which arrive here, but processed foods, which have been value-added in developing countries. She is right, which is why the Government are taking the lead in every international forum in seeking to remove those tariffs. I invite her to persuade the anti-globalisation campaigners that open trade—the lifting of tariff barriers—is the right way forward.
	We have been at the forefront of pushing the European Union to to agree the "everything but arms" initiative for duty-free and quota-free market access for the least developed countries; there are now phase-in periods for rice, sugar and bananas. I would like those phase-in periods to be shorter, but I must take on, intellectually and politically, colleagues on the left in France and Germany, and many people in this country, who oppose the removal of protectionist tariffs and the fight for free and open trade. Government support for fair trade therefore has to be seen in the context of their wider commitment to reforming national and international trade to benefit the poor. Examples of that commitment include Traidcraft Exchange; the Government support business agencies and individual enterprises in developing countries with exporting, wholesaling and importing facilities, linking them to commercial buyers in Europe. Countries that the Government are helping through that initiative include Malawi, Zambia, Tanzania, India, and the Philippines.
	We are supporting the start-up costs of the Day Chocolate Company in Ghana; manufacturers and markets which trade fairly get access to markets in the United Kingdom. We are seeking to help southern producer groups to meet changing market demand and assist with sustainable improvements to their livelihoods. We want capacity-building programmes for business service providers in developing countries which link producer groups with domestic and international markets. We want to support marketing campaigns to promote the principles of fair trade, and we want to support further the fair trade labelling system. Labelling a product, whether a T-shirt or a packet of coffee, to show that it was produced in accordance with the values of fair or ethical trade is one of the best ways of making progress. We want independent auditing of the fair trade label to ensure the validity of its guarantee to consumers and to prevent it from being suborned by some of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred. Shoppers in Britain should be sure that when they pay a little extra, it will get to the producers.
	I am therefore particularly proud that, in the past five years, the UK, alone of the G8 or the major EU countries, has increased its share of gross domestic product devoted to aid; it has increased by 45 per cent. That, if nothing else, is an achievement of which every Labour MP and the Labour Government can be truly proud.
	The fair trade debate will continue. The House has my pledge and, I am sure, the pledge of all Ministers, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development will co-operate closely and continue to promote fair trade in the context of open trade, so that all the world can grow and we can finally defeat the scourge of poverty which, as the Prime Minister said of Africa, is a scar on the conscience on the world.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.